Background: International research has established that children and adolescents are at high risk for being exposed to violence. A systematic review published in 2023 recommended six child and adolescent self-report violence against children (VAC) measures, based on their psychometric properties, in a systematic COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) review. However, the degree of overlap and heterogeneity was not part of the analysis.Objective: To compare the six measures with respect to item overlap and differences concerning specification of exposure dimensions.Method: A content analysis of the original 174 items resulted in a reduction to 38 unique items. These items were organized visually in a co-occurrence circle using an adapted version of Fried\'s R code. Furthermore, a pairwise comparison of event lists was performed using the Jaccard index.Results: There was a modest overlap among the six measures. Only one item was present in all six measures, only two items were present in four measures, and 78% of the items were present in just one or two measures. The overall overlap between the six measures was 25%.Conclusions: The lack of overlap among measures reflects a heterogeneity of definitions and purposes. It also impedes progress in research, as comparisons between various studies are difficult to make in a valid and reliable way. The lack of consensus also delays efficient political initiatives, because solid, consensual knowledge about the prevalence of VAC does not exist.
Violence against children (VAC) is a high political and professional priority. A recent systematic review recommended six self-report measures based on their psychometric qualities.The VAC items were very diverse. A content analysis reduced the original 174 items to 38 unique items. A Jaccard index showed an overlap of 25%.The lack of consensus in definitions and applied measures impedes progress in research and delays important political, prophylactic initiatives.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of impairments of cognitive functions is expected to increase. Enhancing the QoL of those affected is important. HRQoL in people with CI can be assessed by self-report, proxy-report or observation but there is uncertainty how to best assess HRQoL in people with CI, and which assessment method is most appropriate. Therefore the aim of our study was to use Delphi methodology in order to achieve consensus on how HRQoL should be assessed in people with CI and which content domains should be assessed.
METHODS: The Delphi process consisted of three online survey rounds and a concluding consensus conference. Participants were experts as well as individuals and relatives of people affected by CI. The Delphi survey was developed based on existing literature and included 55 statements at the first round. Consensus was considered to be achieved when a minimum of 75 % of responses fell into the categories 6 (agree) and 7 (strongly agree) (positive consensus) or in categories 1 (strongly disagree) and 2 (disagree) (negative consensus).
RESULTS: Consensus was reached for a total of 41 of 56 statements/substatements. In the 1st survey round 102 experts and 11 relatives participated. In the 2nd survey round 68 experts and 11 relatives continued to participate. In the 3rd survey round 41 experts and 9 relatives participated. In the consensus conference 17 experts and 4 relatives of individuals with CI and in the second one-hour online conference session 14 experts and 2 relatives of individuals with CI participated.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the three assessment methods self-report, proxy-report and observation across all stages of CI is the preferred method and should be used whenever possible. As domains Physical capacity, Psychological, Level of Independence, Social Relationships, Environment and Spirituality/Relogion/Personal Beliefs should be assessed.

In 2013, consensus was obtained on a definition of bruxism as repetitive masticatory muscle activity characterised by clenching or grinding of the teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible and specified as either sleep bruxism or awake bruxism. In addition, a grading system was proposed to determine the likelihood that a certain assessment of bruxism actually yields a valid outcome. This study discusses the need for an updated consensus and has the following aims: (i) to further clarify the 2013 definition and to develop separate definitions for sleep and awake bruxism; (ii) to determine whether bruxism is a disorder rather than a behaviour that can be a risk factor for certain clinical conditions; (iii) to re-examine the 2013 grading system; and (iv) to develop a research agenda. It was concluded that: (i) sleep and awake bruxism are masticatory muscle activities that occur during sleep (characterised as rhythmic or non-rhythmic) and wakefulness (characterised by repetitive or sustained tooth contact and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible), respectively; (ii) in otherwise healthy individuals, bruxism should not be considered as a disorder, but rather as a behaviour that can be a risk (and/or protective) factor for certain clinical consequences; (iii) both non-instrumental approaches (notably self-report) and instrumental approaches (notably electromyography) can be employed to assess bruxism; and (iv) standard cut-off points for establishing the presence or absence of bruxism should not be used in otherwise healthy individuals; rather, bruxism-related masticatory muscle activities should be assessed in the behaviour\'s continuum.

BACKGROUND: Different criteria regarding outcome measures in smoking research are used, which can lead to confusion about study results. Consensus in outcome criteria may enhance the comparability of future studies. This study aims (1) to provide an overview of tobacco researchers\' considered preferences regarding outcome criteria in randomized controlled smoking cessation trials, and (2) to identify the extent to which researchers can reach consensus on the importance of these outcome criteria.
METHODS: A three-round online Delphi study was conducted among smoking cessation experts. In the first round, the most important smoking cessation outcome measures were collected by means of open-ended questions, which were categorized around self-reported and biochemical validation measures. Experts (n = 17) were asked to name the outcome measures (as well as their assessment method and ideal follow-up period) that they thought were important when assessing smoking-related outcomes. In the second (n = 48) and third rounds (n = 37), a list of outcome measures-identified in the first round-was presented to experts. Asking them to rate the importance of each measure on a seven-point scale.
RESULTS: Experts reached consensus on several items. For self-reports, experts agreed that prolonged abstinence (6 or/and 12 months), point prevalence abstinence (7 days), continuous abstinence (6 months), and the number of cigarettes smoked (7 days) are important outcome measures. Experts reached consensus that biochemical validation methods should not always be used. The preferred biochemical validation methods were carbon monoxide (expired air) and cotinine (saliva). Preferred follow-ups included 6 and/or 12 months, with or without intermediate measurements.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest only partial compliance with the Russell standard and that more outcome measures may be important (including seven-day point-prevalence abstinence, number of cigarettes smoked, and cotinine when using biochemical validation). This study showed where there is and is not consensus, reflecting the need to develop a more comprehensive standard. For these purposes we provided suggestions for the Russell 2.0 standard.