TY - JOUR
T1 - Expert appraisal of criteria for assessing gaming disorder
T2 - an international Delphi study
AU - Castro-Calvo, Jesús
AU - King, Daniel L.
AU - Stein, Dan J.
AU - Brand, Matthias
AU - Carmi, Lior
AU - Chamberlain, Samuel R.
AU - Demetrovics, Zsolt
AU - Fineberg, Naomi A.
AU - Rumpf, Hans Jürgen
AU - Yücel, Murat
AU - Achab, Sophia
AU - Ambekar, Atul
AU - Bahar, Norharlina
AU - Blaszczynski, Alexander
AU - Bowden-Jones, Henrietta
AU - Carbonell, Xavier
AU - Chan, Elda Mei Lo
AU - Ko, Chih Hung
AU - de Timary, Philippe
AU - Dufour, Magali
AU - Grall-Bronnec, Marie
AU - Lee, Hae Kook
AU - Higuchi, Susumu
AU - Jimenez-Murcia, Susana
AU - Király, Orsolya
AU - Kuss, Daria J.
AU - Long, Jiang
AU - Müller, Astrid
AU - Pallanti, Stefano
AU - Potenza, Marc N.
AU - Rahimi-Movaghar, Afarin
AU - Saunders, John B.
AU - Schimmenti, Adriano
AU - Lee, Seung Yup
AU - Siste, Kristiana
AU - Spritzer, Daniel T.
AU - Starcevic, Vladan
AU - Weinstein, Aviv M.
AU - Wölfling, Klaus
AU - Billieux, Joël
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.
PY - 2021/9
Y1 - 2021/9
N2 - Background and aims: Following the recognition of ‘internet gaming disorder’ (IGD) as a condition requiring further study by the DSM-5, ‘gaming disorder’ (GD) was officially included as a diagnostic entity by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). However, the proposed diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder remain the subject of debate, and there has been no systematic attempt to integrate the views of different groups of experts. To achieve a more systematic agreement on this new disorder, this study employed the Delphi expert consensus method to obtain expert agreement on the diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value of the DSM-5 criteria and ICD-11 clinical guidelines for GD. Methods: A total of 29 international experts with clinical and/or research experience in GD completed three iterative rounds of a Delphi survey. Experts rated proposed criteria in progressive rounds until a pre-determined level of agreement was achieved. Results: For DSM-5 IGD criteria, there was an agreement both that a subset had high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value and that some (e.g. tolerance, deception) had low diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Crucially, some DSM-5 criteria (e.g. escapism/mood regulation, tolerance) were regarded as incapable of distinguishing between problematic and non-problematic gaming. In contrast, ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for GD (except for the criterion relating to diminished non-gaming interests) were judged as presenting high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Conclusions: This Delphi survey provides a foundation for identifying the most diagnostically valid and clinically useful criteria for GD. There was expert agreement that some DSM-5 criteria were not clinically relevant and may pathologize non-problematic patterns of gaming, whereas ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines are likely to diagnose GD adequately and avoid pathologizing.
AB - Background and aims: Following the recognition of ‘internet gaming disorder’ (IGD) as a condition requiring further study by the DSM-5, ‘gaming disorder’ (GD) was officially included as a diagnostic entity by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). However, the proposed diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder remain the subject of debate, and there has been no systematic attempt to integrate the views of different groups of experts. To achieve a more systematic agreement on this new disorder, this study employed the Delphi expert consensus method to obtain expert agreement on the diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value of the DSM-5 criteria and ICD-11 clinical guidelines for GD. Methods: A total of 29 international experts with clinical and/or research experience in GD completed three iterative rounds of a Delphi survey. Experts rated proposed criteria in progressive rounds until a pre-determined level of agreement was achieved. Results: For DSM-5 IGD criteria, there was an agreement both that a subset had high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value and that some (e.g. tolerance, deception) had low diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Crucially, some DSM-5 criteria (e.g. escapism/mood regulation, tolerance) were regarded as incapable of distinguishing between problematic and non-problematic gaming. In contrast, ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for GD (except for the criterion relating to diminished non-gaming interests) were judged as presenting high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Conclusions: This Delphi survey provides a foundation for identifying the most diagnostically valid and clinically useful criteria for GD. There was expert agreement that some DSM-5 criteria were not clinically relevant and may pathologize non-problematic patterns of gaming, whereas ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines are likely to diagnose GD adequately and avoid pathologizing.
KW - DSM
KW - Delphi
KW - ICD
KW - diagnosis
KW - gaming disorder
KW - internet gaming disorder
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85099942594
U2 - 10.1111/add.15411
DO - 10.1111/add.15411
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 33449441
AN - SCOPUS:85099942594
SN - 0965-2140
VL - 116
SP - 2463
EP - 2475
JO - Addiction
JF - Addiction
IS - 9
ER -