MGMIMass Gathering Medicine

← Library

AI-DRAFTED — PHYSICIAN REVIEW IN PROGRESSThe citation for this entry was checked against Crossref and PubMed, but its summary and interpretation were drafted by an AI model from the published abstract and have not yet been individually read by a physician. Read the linked source before relying on this operationally.
Paper ✓ verified

Exploring International Views on Key Concepts for Mass-gathering Health through a Delphi Process[1]

Steenkamp M, Hutton AE, Ranse JC, et al; Arbon PA · 2016 · Prehosp Disaster Med

Summary

Two-round Delphi with WHO VIAG and WADEM MG-section experts (38 starting; >=80% consensus threshold) toward a transnational minimum data set and data dictionary for mass-gathering health. Consensus reached on the term "MGH" (92%), MDS purposes (100%), both MG population models (86%/83%), and event phases (94%); NOT reached on the overall conceptual diagram (67-75%) or the data-element matrix (77%).

So what

The formal consensus machinery behind the minimum-data-set movement — with its scorecard: the field agrees on vocabulary, purpose, models, and phases, and stalls exactly at the conceptual diagram and the data matrix. For MGMI's registry project this is both mandate (the agreed 80%+ core) and map of the unsettled parts a working registry must simply decide.

Key findings

  • WHO/WADEM Delphi: consensus on MGH term, MDS purposes, population models, event phases
  • No consensus on the conceptual diagram or data-element matrix
  • Defines exactly where a working registry must make executive choices
  • Companion process paper: Turris 2016 (pmid 26843271)

Read the paper