Comparison of clinicians' and researchers' ratings of proposed diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying-shopping disorder within a Delphi study.

Diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying shopping disorder were recently proposed based on a Delphi consensus study including 138 experts from 35 countries. The present study represents a secondary analysis of those data. To provide further support for the validity of expert responses in the Delphi study, the sample was retrospectively divided into clinician and researcher subgroups. The two groups were compared with respect to demographic variables, their importance ratings of clinical features, possible diagnostic criteria, differential diagnoses and specifiers of compulsive buying shopping disorder. Researchers reported less years of treating/assessing individuals with compulsive buying shopping disorder and stated that they have treated/assessed individuals with compulsive buying shopping disorder less often in the last 12 months than clinicians. Responses from the two groups concerning the importance ratings of possible diagnostic criteria of compulsive buying shopping disorder converged with only few minor differences with small to moderate group effects. However, even for those criteria, the consensus threshold (≥75% agreement with the proposed criterion) was reached in both groups. The lack of differences in the responses of the two groups indicates good validity for the proposed diagnostic criteria. Future research should address the clinical applicability and diagnostic validity of the criteria.

Testing the Differential Impact of an Internet-Based Mental Health Intervention on Outcomes of Well-being and Psychological Distress During COVID-19: Uncontrolled Intervention Study.

BACKGROUND: During COVID-19, the psychological distress and well-being of the general population has been precarious, increasing the need to determine the impact of complementary internet-based psychological interventions on both positive mental health as well as distress states. Psychological distress and mental well-being represent distinct dimensions of our mental health, and congruent changes in outcomes of distress and well-being do not necessarily co-occur within individuals. When testing intervention impact, it is therefore important to assess change in both outcomes at the individual level, rather than solely testing group differences in average scores at the group level. OBJECTIVE: This study set out to investigate the differential impact of an internet-based group mental health intervention on outcomes of positive mental health (ie, well-being, life satisfaction, resilience) and indicators of psychological distress (ie, depression, anxiety, stress). METHODS: A 5-week mental health intervention was delivered to 89 participants using the Zoom platform during 2020. Impact on outcomes of distress, well-being, and resilience was assessed at the start and end of the program with multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) and reliable change indices (RCIs) being used to determine program impact at the group and individual levels, respectively. RESULTS: The intervention significantly improved all mental health outcomes measured, (F6,83=5.60, P<.001; Wilks Λ=.71; partial η2=.29) showing small to moderate effect sizes on individual outcomes. The largest effect sizes were observed for life satisfaction and overall well-being (η2=.22 and η2=.2, respectively). Larger effect sizes were noted for those with problematic mental health scores at baseline. A total of 92% (82/89) of participants demonstrated reliable change in at least one mental health outcome. Differential response patterns using RCI revealed that more than one-half of the participants showed improvement in both mental well-being and psychological distress, over one-quarter in outcomes of well-being only, and almost one-fifth in distress only. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide evidence for the significant impact of an internet-based mental health intervention during COVID-19 and indicate the importance of assessing dimensions of both well-being and distress when determining mental health intervention effectiveness.

Screening and assessment tools for gaming disorder: A comprehensive systematic review.

The inclusion of gaming disorder (GD) as an official diagnosis in the ICD-11 was a significant milestone for the field. However, the optimal measurement approaches for GD are currently unclear. This comprehensive systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate all available English-language GD tools and their corresponding evidence. A search of PsychINFO, PsychArticles, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified 32 tools employed in 320 studies (N = 462,249 participants). The evaluation framework examined tools in relation to: (1) conceptual and practical considerations; (2) alignment with DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria; (3) type and quantity of studies and samples; and (4) psychometric properties. The evaluation showed that GD instrumentation has proliferated, with 2.5 tools, on average, published annually since 2013. Coverage of DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria was inconsistent, especially for the criterion of continued use despite harm. Tools converge on the importance of screening for impaired control over gaming and functional impairment. Overall, no single tool was found to be clearly superior, but the AICA-Sgaming, GAS-7, IGDT-10, IGDS9-SF, and Lemmens IGD-9 scales had greater evidential support for their psychometric properties. The GD field would benefit from a standard international tool to identify gaming-related harms across the spectrum of maladaptive gaming behaviors.

Who is identified when screening for depression is undertaken in general practice? Baseline findings from the Diagnosis, Management and Outcomes of Depression in Primary Care (diamond) longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVES: To report the baseline characteristics of the Diagnosis, Management and Outcomes of Depression in Primary Care (diamond) study cohort and discuss the implications for depression care in general practice. DESIGN: A prospective longitudinal study beginning in January 2005. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Adult patients with depressive symptoms identified via screening with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D > or = 16) in 30 randomly selected Victorian general practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Depression status on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). RESULTS: 789 patients form the cohort (71% women). At baseline, 47% were married, 21% lived alone, 36% received a pension or benefit, 15% were unable to work, 23% reported hazardous drinking, 32% were smokers, 39% used antidepressants and 19% used sedatives. 27% satisfied criteria for current major depressive syndrome (MDS) on the PHQ, while 52% had "persistent" depressive symptoms, and 22% had "transient" depressive symptoms, lasting at most a few weeks. Of those satisfying criteria for MDS, 49% were also classified with an anxiety syndrome, 40% reported childhood sexual abuse, 57% reported childhood physical abuse, 42% had at some time been afraid of their partner, and 72% reported a chronic physical condition; 84% were receiving mental health care (either taking antidepressants or seeing a health practitioner specifically for mental health care) compared with 66% of those with persistent depressive symptoms and 57% with transient depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: This method of screening for depressive symptoms in general practice identifies a group of patients with substantial multiple comorbidities -- psychiatric, physical and social problems coexist with depressive symptoms, raising challenges for the management of depression in general practice.