scholarly journals Crowdsourcing for Research: Perspectives From a Delphi Panel

SAGE Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 215824402098075
Author(s):  
H. Bassi ◽  
L. Misener ◽  
A. M. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Delphi Panel ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
Research Perspectives ◽  
Health Related Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Modified Delphi Technique

Crowdsourcing, an open call for the public to collaborate and participate in problem solving, has been increasingly employed as a method in health-related research studies. Various reviews of the literature across different disciplines found crowdsourcing being used for data collection, processing, and analysis as well as tasks such as problem solving, data processing, surveillance/monitoring, and surveying. Studies on crowdsourcing tend to focus on its use of software, technology and online platforms, or its application for the purposes previously noted. There is need for further exploration to understand how best to use crowdsourcing for research, as there is limited guidance for researchers who are undertaking crowdsourcing for the purposes of scientific study. Numerous authors have identified gaps in research related to crowdsourcing, including a lack of decision aids to assist researchers using crowdsourcing, and best-practice guidelines. This exploratory study looks at crowdsourcing as a research method by understanding how and why it is being used, through application of a modified Delphi technique. It begins to articulate how crowdsourcing is applied in practice by researchers, and its alignment with existing research methods. The result is a conceptual framework for crowdsourcing, developed within traditional and existing research approaches as a first step toward its use in research.

Using wearable cameras to investigate health-related daily life experiences: A literature review of precautions and risks in empirical studies

2021 ◽  
pp. 174701612110540
Author(s):  
Laurel E Meyer ◽  
Lauren Porter ◽  
Meghan E Reilly ◽  
Caroline Johnson ◽  
Salman Safir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Sensitive Information ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
Wearable Cameras ◽  
Health Related Research ◽  
Health Related

Automated, wearable cameras can benefit health-related research by capturing accurate and objective information about individuals’ daily experiences. However, wearable cameras present unique privacy- and confidentiality-related risks due to the possibility of the images capturing identifying or sensitive information from participants and third parties. Although best practice guidelines for ethical research with wearable cameras have been published, limited information exists on the risks of studies using wearable cameras. The aim of this literature review was to survey risks related to using wearable cameras, and precautions taken to reduce those risks, as reported in empirical research. Forty-five publications, comprising 36 independent studies, were reviewed, and findings revealed that participants’ primary concerns with using wearable cameras included physical inconvenience and discomfort in certain situations (e.g. public settings). None of the studies reviewed reported any serious adverse events. Although it is possible that reported findings do not include all risks experienced by participants in research with wearable cameras, our findings suggest a low level of risk to participants. However, it is important that investigators adopt recommended precautions, which can promote autonomy and reduce risks, including participant discomfort.

Best Practices for Meta-Reviews in Physical Activity and Health Research: Insights From the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee Scientific Report

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Linda S. Pescatello ◽  
Emily A. Hennessy ◽  
Peter T. Katzmarzyk ◽  
William E. Kraus ◽  
Anne F. Fish ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Physical Activity Guidelines ◽  
Health Related Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Scientific Report ◽  
Synthesis Methodology ◽  
High Level ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) have proliferated with a concomitant increase in reviews of SRs/MAs or “meta-reviews” (MRs). As uncovered by the 2018 US Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (PAGAC), there is a paucity of best practice guidance on MRs on physical activity health-related research. This manuscript aims to fill this gap. Methods: In total, the PAGAC conducted 38 literature searches across 3 electronic databases and triaged 20,838 titles, 4913 abstracts, and 2139 full texts from which 1130 articles qualified for the PAGAC Scientific Report. Results: During the MR process, the following challenges were encountered: (1) if the SR/MA authors had limited experience in synthesis methodology, they likely did not account for risk of bias in the conclusions they reached; (2) many SRs/MAs reviewed the same primary-level studies; (3) many SRs/MAs failed to disclose effect modifier analyses; (4) source populations varied; (5) physical activity exposures were nonstandardized; and (6) dose–response effects or effect modification of the physical activity exposure could not be identified. Conclusions: Using examples from the PAGAC Scientific Report, we provide (1) a high-level introduction to MRs; (2) recommended steps in conducting a MR; (3) challenges that can be encountered; and (4) guidance in addressing these challenges.

scholarly journals Application of a Participatory Ergonomic Approach for Scaling Handoff Redesign: A Pilot Feasibility Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 283-288
Author(s):  
Louise Gliga ◽  
Isaac Lynch ◽  
Richard Preble ◽  
Philip Greilich
Keyword(s):  
Participatory Design ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Care Transitions ◽  
Implementation Process ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Transitions Of Care ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines

Transitions of care between clinical areas are potentially dangerous events in healthcare. This is especially true in high risk areas, such as between the operating room (OR) and the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite the existence of best practice guidelines for perioperative handoffs, scaling up successful pilots remains a challenge. To more effectively address this limitation, we tested the feasibility of using a participatory ergonomic approach for scaling handoff redesign and implementation in an academic medical center. A multidisciplinary unit-based change team of representatives and influencers was supported by a guidance team of leaders, coaches and subject matter experts through a structured implementation process (plan, engage, execute, reflect). The participatory design incorporated a modified Delphi technique, simulation, and facilitated debriefing to elicit feedback in multiple iterative cycles. The redesigned handoff became the preferred approach by frontline clinicians across the involved disciplines and resulted in a sustained improvement in conformance to unit-determined handoff best practices. The success of this feasibility pilot has led to the support of a diffusion pilot for scaling up handoff redesign within the health system. The study supports further investigation of using a participatory ergonomics approach to engage frontline clinicians and executive leadership to scale complex sociotechnical change, like handoffs and care transitions.

scholarly journals Best Practice Recommendations for the Diagnosis and Management of Children With Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome Temporally Associated With SARS-CoV-2 (PIMS-TS; Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children, MIS-C) in Switzerland

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luregn J. Schlapbach ◽  
Maya C. Andre ◽  
Serge Grazioli ◽  
Nina Schöbi ◽  
Nicole Ritz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practice ◽  
International Health ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
Management Algorithm ◽  
Inflammatory Conditions ◽  
Health Authorities ◽  
Inflammatory Syndrome

Background: Following the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic a new disease entity emerged, defined as Pediatric Inflammatory Multisystem Syndrome temporally associated with COVID-19 (PIMS-TS), or Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C). In the absence of trials, evidence for treatment remains scarce.Purpose: To develop best practice recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of children with PIMS-TS in Switzerland. It is acknowledged that the field is changing rapidly, and regular revisions in the coming months are pre-planned as evidence is increasing.Methods: Consensus guidelines for best practice were established by a multidisciplinary group of Swiss pediatric clinicians with expertise in intensive care, immunology/rheumatology, infectious diseases, hematology, and cardiology. Subsequent to literature review, four working groups established draft recommendations which were subsequently adapted in a modified Delphi process. Recommendations had to reach >80% agreement for acceptance.Results: The group achieved agreement on 26 recommendations, which specify diagnostic approaches and interventions across anti-inflammatory, anti-infectious, and support therapies, and follow-up for children with suspected PIMS-TS. A management algorithm was derived to guide treatment depending on the phenotype of presentation, categorized into PIMS-TS with (a) shock, (b) Kawasaki-disease like, and (c) undifferentiated inflammatory presentation.Conclusion: Available literature on PIMS-TS is limited to retrospective or prospective observational studies. Informed by these cohort studies and indirect evidence from other inflammatory conditions in children and adults, as well as guidelines from international health authorities, the Swiss PIMS-TS recommendations represent best practice guidelines based on currently available knowledge to standardize treatment of children with suspected PIMS-TS. Given the absence of high-grade evidence, regular updates of the recommendations will be warranted, and participation of patients in trials should be encouraged.

scholarly journals Creating Narrative Entertainment for Health Communication: Perspectives from Practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 097325862199284
Author(s):  
Laurie M. Hursting ◽  
Maria Leonora G. Comello
Keyword(s):  
Health Communication ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Entertainment Industry ◽  
Narrative Development ◽  
Content Creation ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Universal Themes ◽  
Depth Interviews

This project aimed to explore the perspectives of entertainment industry and health communication practitioners in the United States on creating health storylines in entertainment programming. These dual perspectives are usually not studied in tandem but together offer insights into the creation of impactful health-related narratives. In-depth interviews were conducted with entertainment industry and health professionals ( N = 6) who are experienced in creating health storylines. Questions aimed to illuminate how practitioners define ‘success’ of a health storyline, what they perceive as key elements for impactful health storylines, how key story elements are created and the nature of collaboration between the entertainment industry and public health. Grounded theory analysis identified three core themes for the successful combination of narrative entertainment and health: choosing teams with complementary strengths (e.g., leveraging professional collaboration and trust), knowing your audience (e.g., conducting formative research to understand who the story is intended for and why) and integrating health content in authentic ways (e.g., telling dramatic stories with universal themes, without creating from the intent of relaying health information). Best-practice guidelines for narrative entertainment to communicate about health, informed by the core themes and persuasion theory, are offered for narrative development, pre-production, content creation and dissemination.

Opioid crisis in primary care? An audit of high-dose opioid prescribing at Bangholm GP Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 70 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp20X711581
Author(s):  
Charlotte Greene ◽  
Alice Pearson
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
Best Practice Guidelines

BackgroundOpioids are effective analgesics for acute and palliative pain, but there is no evidence base for long-term pain relief. They also carry considerable risks such as overdose and dependence. Despite this, they are increasingly prescribed for chronic pain. In the UK, opioid prescribing more than doubled between 1998 and 2018.AimAn audit at Bangholm GP Practice to understand the scale of high-strength opioid prescribing. The aim of the audit was to find out if indications, length of prescription, discussion, and documentation at initial consultation and review process were consistent with best-practice guidelines.MethodA search on Scottish Therapeutics Utility for patients prescribed an average daily dose of opioid equivalent ≥50 mg morphine between 1 July 2019 and 1 October 2019, excluding methadone, cancer pain, or palliative prescriptions. The Faculty of Pain Medicine’s best-practice guidelines were used.ResultsDemographics: 60 patients (37 females), average age 62, 28% registered with repeat opioid prescription, 38% comorbid depression. Length of prescription: average 6 years, 57% >5 years, 22% >10 years. Opioid: 52% tramadol, 23% on two opioids. Indications: back pain (42%), osteoarthritis (12%), fibromyalgia (10%). Initial consultation: 7% agreed outcomes, 35% follow-up documented. Review: 56% 4-week, 70% past year.ConclusionOpioid prescribing guidelines are not followed. The significant issues are: long-term prescriptions for chronic pain, especially back pain; new patients registering with repeat prescriptions; and no outcomes of treatment agreed, a crucial message is the goal is pain management rather than relief. Changes have been introduced at the practice: a patient information sheet, compulsory 1-month review for new patients on opioids, and in-surgery pain referrals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document