Development of the Gambling Disorder Identification Test: Results from an international Delphi and consensus process.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Diverse instruments are used to measure problem gambling and Gambling Disorder intervention outcomes. The 2004 Banff consensus agreement proposed necessary features for reporting gambling treatment efficacy. To address the challenge of including these features in a single instrument, a process was initiated to develop the Gambling Disorder Identification Test (GDIT), as an instrument analogous to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test and the Drug Use Disorders Identification Test.Methods
Gambling experts from 10 countries participated in an international two-round Delphi (n = 61; n = 30), rating 30 items proposed for inclusion in the GDIT. Gambling researchers and clinicians from several countries participated in three consensus meetings (n = 10; n = 4; n = 3). User feedback was obtained from individuals with experience of problem gambling (n = 12) and from treatment-seekers with Gambling Disorder (n = 8).Results
Ten items fulfilled Delphi consensus criteria for inclusion in the GDIT (M ≥ 7 on a scale of 1-9 in the second round). Item-related issues were addressed, and four more items were added to conform to the Banff agreement recommendations, yielding a final draft version of the GDIT with 14 items in three domains: gambling behavior, gambling symptoms and negative consequences.Conclusions
This study established preliminary construct and face validity for the GDIT.
SUBMITTER: Molander O
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8170582 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) and child maltreatment (CM) are major global public health problems. The Preventing Violence Across the Lifespan (PreVAiL) Research Network, an international group of over 60 researchers and national and international knowledge-user partners in CM and IPV, sought to identify evidence-based research priorities in IPV and CM, with a focus on resilience, using a modified Delphi consensus development process.MethodsReview of existing empirical evidence, PreVAiL documents and team discussion identified a starting list of 20 priorities in the following categories: resilience to violence exposure (RES), CM, and IPV, as well as priorities that cross-cut the content areas (CC), and others specific to research methodologies (RM) in violence research. PreVAiL members (N = 47) completed two online survey rounds, and one round of discussions via three teleconference calls to rate, rank and refine research priorities.ResultsResearch priorities were: to examine key elements of promising or successful programmes in RES/CM/IPV to build intervention pilot work; CC: to integrate violence questions into national and international surveys, and RM: to investigate methods for collecting and collating datasets to link data and to conduct pooled, meta and sub-group analyses to identify promising interventions for particular groups.ConclusionsThese evidence-based research priorities, developed by an international team of violence, gender and mental health researchers and knowledge-user partners, are of relevance for prevention and resilience-oriented research in the areas of IPV and CM.
| S-EPMC3490760 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a consensus statement to provide advice on designing, implementing and evaluating crowdsourcing challenge contests in public health and medical contexts.DesignModified Delphi using three rounds of survey questionnaires and one consensus workshop.SettingUganda for face-to-face consensus activities, global for online survey questionnaires.ParticipantsA multidisciplinary expert panel was convened at a consensus-development conference in Uganda and included 21 researchers with experience leading challenge contests, five public health sector workers, and nine Ugandan end users. An online survey was sent to 140 corresponding authors of previously published articles that had used crowdsourcing methods.ResultsA subgroup of expert panel members developed the initial statement and survey. We received responses from 120 (85.7%) survey participants, which were presented at an in-person workshop of all 21 panel members. Panelists discussed each of the sections, revised the statement, and participated in a second round of the survey questionnaire. Based on this second survey round, we held detailed discussions of each subsection with workshop participants and further revised the consensus statement. We then conducted the third round of the questionnaire among the 21 expert panelists and used the results to finalize the statement. This iterative process resulted in 23 final statement items, all with greater than 80% consensus. Statement items are organised into the seven stages of a challenge contest, including the following: considering the appropriateness, organising a community steering committee, promoting the contest, assessing contributions, recognising contributors, sharing ideas and evaluating the contest (COPARSE).ConclusionsThere is high agreement among crowdsourcing experts and stakeholders on the design and implementation of crowdsourcing challenge contests. The COPARSE consensus statement can be used to organise crowdsourcing challenge contests, improve the rigour and reproducibility of crowdsourcing research and enable large-scale collaboration.
| S-EPMC8573649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThrough the World Health Assembly Resolution, 'Health of Migrants', the international community has identified migrant health as a priority. Recommendations for general hospital care for international migrants in receiving-countries have been put forward by the Migrant Friendly Hospital Initiative; adaptations of these recommendations specific to maternity care have yet to be elucidated and validated. We aimed to develop a questionnaire measuring migrant-friendly maternity care (MFMC) which could be used in a range of maternity care settings and countries.MethodsThis study was conducted in four stages. First, questions related to migrant friendly maternity care were identified from existing questionnaires including the Migrant Friendliness Quality Questionnaire, developed in Europe to capture recommended general hospital care for migrants, and the Mothers In a New Country (MINC) Questionnaire, developed in Australia and revised for use in Canada to capture the maternity care experiences of migrant women, and combined to create an initial MFMC questionnaire. Second, a Delphi consensus process in three rounds with a panel of 89 experts in perinatal health and migration from 17 countries was undertaken to identify priority themes and questions as well as to clarify wording and format. Third, the draft questionnaire was translated from English to French and Spanish and back-translated and subsequently culturally validated (assessed for cultural appropriateness) by migrant women. Fourth, the questionnaire was piloted with migrant women who had recently given birth in Montreal, Canada.ResultsA 112-item questionnaire on maternity care from pregnancy, through labour and birth, to postpartum care, and including items on maternal socio-demographic, migration and obstetrical characteristics, and perceptions of care, has been created--the Migrant Friendly Maternity Care Questionnaire (MFMCQ)--in three languages (English, French and Spanish). It is completed in 45 minutes via interview administration several months post-birth.ConclusionsA 4-stage process of questionnaire development with international experts in migrant reproductive health and research resulted in the MFMCQ, a questionnaire measuring key aspects of migrant-sensitive maternity care. The MFMCQ is available for further translation and use to examine and compare care and perceptions of care within and across countries, and by key socio-demographic, migration, and obstetrical characteristics of migrant women.
| S-EPMC4088918 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids).Design and settingTwo stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration.ParticipantsIndividuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones.Main outcome measureAggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained.Results212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8).ConclusionsCriteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.
| S-EPMC1553508 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeLocal treatment for bone metastases is becoming increasingly complex. National guidelines traditionally focus only on radiation therapy (RT), leaving a gap in clinical decision support resources available to clinicians. The objective of this study was to reach expert consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of non-spine bone metastases, which would facilitate standardizing treatment within an academic-community partnership.Methods and materialsA multidisciplinary panel of physicians treating metastatic disease across the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Alliance, including community-based partner sites, was convened. Clinical questions rated of high importance in the management of non-spine bone metastases were identified via survey. A literature review was conducted, and panel physicians drafted initial recommendation statements. Consensus was gathered on recommendation statements through a modified Delphi process from a full panel of 17 physicians from radiation oncology, orthopaedic surgery, medical oncology, interventional radiology, and anesthesia pain. Consensus was defined a priori as 75% of respondents indicating "agree" or "strongly agree" with the consensus statement. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy was employed to assign evidence strength for each statement.ResultsSeventeen clinical questions were identified, of which 11 (65%) were selected for the consensus process. Consensus was reached for 16 of 17 answer statements (94%), of which 12 were approved after Round 1 and additional 4 approved after Round 2 of the modified Delphi voting process. Topics included indications for referral to surgery or interventional radiology, radiation fractionation and appropriate use of stereotactic approaches, and the handling of systemic therapies during radiation. Evidence strength was most commonly C (n = 7), followed by B (n = 5) and A (n = 3).ConclusionsConsensus among a multidisciplinary panel of community and academic physicians treating non-spine bone metastases was feasible. Recommendations will assist clinicians and potentially provide measures to reduce variation across diverse practice settings. Findings highlight areas for further research such as pathologic fracture risk estimation, pre-operative radiation, and percutaneous ablation.
| S-EPMC9127274 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is wide variability of transfusion practices for children with hemorrhagic injuries across trauma centers. We are planning a multicenter, randomized clinical trial evaluating tranexamic acid in children with hemorrhage. Standardization of transfusion practices across sites is important to minimize confounding. Therefore, we sought to generate consensus-based transfusion guidelines for the trial.MethodsWe used a modified Delphi process utilizing a multi-site, multi-disciplinary panel of experts to develop our transfusion guidelines. A survey of 23 clinical categories on various aspects of transfusion practices was developed and distributed via SurveyMonkey®. Statements were graded on a 5-point Likert scale ("Strongly agree" to "This intervention may be harmful"). Statements were accepted if ≥ 80% of the panelists rated the statement as "Strongly agree" or "Agree". After each round, the responses were calculated and the results included on subsequent rounds.Results35 panelists from four pediatric trauma centers participated in the study, including 11 (31%) pediatric EM physicians, 8 (23%) pediatric trauma surgeons, 5 (14%) transfusionists, 5 (14%) pediatric anesthesiologists, and 6 (17%) pediatric critical care physicians (range of 8 to 10 from each clinical site). Four survey iterations were performed. In total 176 statements were rated and 39 were accepted by criteria across all 23 categories. An rational algorithm for transfusion in trauma was then developed.ConclusionsWe successfully developed transfusion guidelines for various aspects of the management of children with hemorrhagic injuries using a modified Delphi process with broad interdisciplinary participation. We anticipate implementation of these guidelines will help minimize heterogeneity of transfusion practices across clinical sites for the upcoming clinical trial evaluating tranexamic acid in children with hemorrhage.
| S-EPMC8130983 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProximal humerus fracture (PHF) complications, whether following surgery or nonoperative management, require standardization of definitions and documentation for consistent reporting. We aimed to define an international consensus core event set (CES) of clinically-relevant unfavorable events of PHF to be documented in clinical routine practice and research.MethodsA Delphi exercise was implemented with an international panel of experienced shoulder trauma surgeons selected by survey invitation of AO Trauma members. An organized list of PHF events after nonoperative or operative management was developed and reviewed by panel members using on-line surveys. The proposed core set was revised regarding event groups along with definitions, specifications and timing of occurrence. Consensus was reached with at least a two-third agreement.ResultsThe PHF consensus panel was composed of 231 clinicians worldwide who responded to at least one of two completed surveys. There was 93% final agreement about three intraoperative local event groups (device, osteochondral, soft tissue). Postoperative or nonoperative event terms and definitions organized into eight groups (device, osteochondral, shoulder instability, fracture-related infection, peripheral neurological, vascular, superficial soft tissue, deep soft tissue) were approved with 96 to 98% agreement. The time period for documentation ranged from 30 days to 24 months after PHF treatment depending on the event group and specification. The resulting consensus was presented on a paper-based PHF CES documentation form.ConclusionsInternational consensus was achieved on a core set of local unfavorable events of PHF to foster standardization of complication reporting in clinical research and register documentation.Trial registrationNot applicable.
| S-EPMC8630858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsConsensus regarding an optimal algorithm for endoscopic treatment of papillary adenomas has not been established. We aimed to assess the existing degree of consensus among international experts and develop further concordance by means of a Delphi process.MethodsFifty-two international experts in the field of endoscopic papillectomy were invited to participate. Data were collected between August and December 2019 using an online survey platform. Three rounds were conducted. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement.ResultsSixteen experts (31%) completed the full process, and consensus was achieved on 47 of the final 79 statements (59%). Diagnostic workup should include at least an upper endoscopy using a duodenoscope (100%) and biopsy sampling (94%). There should be selected use of additional abdominal imaging (75%-81%). Patients with (suspected) papillary malignancy or over 1 cm intraductal extension should be referred for surgical resection (76%). To prevent pancreatitis, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be administered before resection (82%) and a pancreatic stent should be placed (100%). A biliary stent is indicated in case of ongoing bleeding from the papillary region (76%) or concerns for a (micro)perforation after resection (88%). Follow-up should be started 3 to 6 months after initial papillectomy and repeated every 6 to 12 months for at least 5 years (75%).ConclusionsThis is the first step in developing an international consensus-based algorithm for endoscopic management of papillary adenomas. Surprisingly, in many areas consensus could not be achieved. These aspects should be the focus of future studies.
| S-EPMC8878358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common condition, especially in the elderly. In order to prevent progression and complications of the disease, guideline-adherent outpatient care of patients with CKD should be prioritized. Quality indicators (QIs) can be used to measure and evaluate the quality of ambulatory care for patients with CKD. QIs specifically made for evaluating CKD care in Germany are not yet available. The goal of this work was to develop QIs for the quality assessment of outpatient care for patients over the age of 70 with CKD not requiring dialysis.Materials and methodsQIs were operationalized from the recommendations of the German national guideline for CKD and others were proposed based on a published review of international QIs. The resulting QIs were divided into sets based on routine data (e.g., health insurance billing data) and data collection in practices (chart review). A panel of experts from various disciplines as well as a patient representative evaluated the proposed QIs in a two-stage Delphi process via online survey in October 2021 and January 2022 and a final consensus conference in March 2022. In addition, ranking lists of the most important QIs from each set were created.ResultsAn incidence indicator and a prevalence indicator were established; these were not subject to vote. Further, 21 QIs were voted upon by the expert panel. The seven most important QIs in each set (billing data or chart review) were selected. Only one QI was rated by the expert panel as not suitable for additional use in adults under the age of 70 years.DiscussionThe QIs will enable the evaluation of the quality of outpatient care for patients with CKD with the long-term aim of optimizing guideline-adherent outpatient care.
| S-EPMC10261173 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/objectivesAtaxia telangiectasia (A-T) is a multiorgan disorder with increased vulnerability to cancer. Despite this increased cancer risk, there are no widely accepted guidelines for cancer surveillance in people affected by A-T. We aimed to understand the current international practice regarding cancer surveillance in A-T and agreed-upon approaches to develop cancer surveillance in A-T.Design/methodsWe used a consensus development method, the e-Delphi technique, comprising three rounds. Round 1 consisted of a Delphi questionnaire and a survey that collected the details of respondents' professional background, experience, and current practice of cancer surveillance in A-T. Rounds 2 and 3 were designed based on previous rounds and modified according to the comments made by the panellists. The pre-specified consensus threshold was ≥75% agreement.ResultsThirty-five expert panellists from 13 countries completed the study. The survey indicated that the current practice of cancer surveillance varies widely between experts and centres'. Consensus was reached that evidence-based guidelines are needed for cancer surveillance in people with A-T, with separate recommendations for adults and children. Statements relating to the tests that should be included, the age for starting and stopping cancer surveillance and the optimal surveillance interval were also agreed upon, although in some areas, the consensus was that further research is needed.ConclusionThe international expert consensus statement confirms the need for evidence-based cancer surveillance guidelines in A-T, highlights key features that the guidelines should include, and identifies areas of uncertainty in the expert community. This elucidates current knowledge gaps and will inform the design of future clinical trials.
| S-EPMC10358231 | biostudies-literature