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

International Consensus on Key Concepts and Data Definitions for Mass-gathering Health: Process and Progress[1]

Turris SA, Steenkamp M, Lund A, et al; Arbon P · 2016 · Prehosp Disaster Med

Summary

Report of the multi-year international collaboration toward consensus on key MGH concepts and a minimum data set: journal correspondence, conference meetings, a four-day working meeting, two years of virtual collaboration, an online Delphi, and a WCDEM 2015 workshop — concluding with agreement that international consensus on concepts and data definitions is needed. Documents variation in data collection/reporting as the obstacle to cross-setting comparison.

So what

The process record for the MDS movement (the Steenkamp Delphi is its instrument). Together they are the citable institutional history behind every minimum-dataset call the modern reviews keep repeating — and the demonstration that consensus-building alone, a decade on, has not produced an operating registry. The gap between agreed need and running infrastructure is MGMI's opening.

Key findings

  • Documents the multi-year WHO/WADEM consensus-building process
  • Names data-collection variation as the obstacle to comparison
  • Concluded: international consensus needed - a decade later, still no operating registry
  • Pairs with steenkamp-2016-delphi as the MDS movement's record

Read the paper