scholarly journals Investigating the Implementation of SMS and Mobile Messaging in Population Screening (the SIPS Study): Protocol for a Delphi Study

10.2196/32660 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e32660
Author(s):  
Amish Acharya ◽  
Gaby Judah ◽  
Hutan Ashrafian ◽  
Viknesh Sounderajah ◽  
Nick Johnstone-Waddell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Population Screening ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Screening Services

Background The use of mobile messaging, including SMS, and web-based messaging in health care has grown significantly. Using messaging to facilitate patient communication has been advocated in several circumstances, including population screening. These programs, however, pose unique challenges to mobile communication, as messaging is often sent from a central hub to a diverse population with differing needs. Despite this, there is a paucity of robust frameworks to guide implementation. Objective The aim of this protocol is to describe the methods that will be used to develop a guide for the principles of use of mobile messaging for population screening programs in England. Methods This modified Delphi study will be conducted in two parts: evidence synthesis and consensus generation. The former will include a review of literature published from January 1, 2000, to October 1, 2021. This will elicit key themes to inform an online scoping questionnaire posed to a group of experts from academia, clinical medicine, industry, and public health. Thematic analysis of free-text responses by two independent authors will elicit items to be used during consensus generation. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement groups will be convened to ensure that a comprehensive item list is generated that represents the public’s perspective. Each item will then be anonymously voted on by experts as to its importance and feasibility of implementation in screening during three rounds of a Delphi process. Consensus will be defined a priori at 70%, with items considered important and feasible being eligible for inclusion in the final recommendation. A list of desirable items (ie, important but not currently feasible) will be developed to guide future work. Results The Institutional Review Board at Imperial College London has granted ethical approval for this study (reference 20IC6088). Results are expected to involve a list of recommendations to screening services, with findings being made available to screening services through Public Health England. This study will, thus, provide a formal guideline for the use of mobile messaging in screening services and will provide future directions in this field. Conclusions The use of mobile messaging has grown significantly across health care services, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic, but its implementation in screening programs remains challenging. This modified Delphi approach with leading experts will provide invaluable insights into facilitating the incorporation of messaging into these programs and will create awareness of future developments in this area. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/32660

scholarly journals Investigating the Implementation of SMS and Mobile Messaging in Population Screening (the SIPS Study): Protocol for a Delphi Study (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amish Acharya ◽  
Gaby Judah ◽  
Hutan Ashrafian ◽  
Viknesh Sounderajah ◽  
Nick Johnstone-Waddell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Population Screening ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Screening Services

BACKGROUND The use of mobile messaging, including SMS, and web-based messaging in health care has grown significantly. Using messaging to facilitate patient communication has been advocated in several circumstances, including population screening. These programs, however, pose unique challenges to mobile communication, as messaging is often sent from a central hub to a diverse population with differing needs. Despite this, there is a paucity of robust frameworks to guide implementation. OBJECTIVE The aim of this protocol is to describe the methods that will be used to develop a guide for the principles of use of mobile messaging for population screening programs in England. METHODS This modified Delphi study will be conducted in two parts: evidence synthesis and consensus generation. The former will include a review of literature published from January 1, 2000, to October 1, 2021. This will elicit key themes to inform an online scoping questionnaire posed to a group of experts from academia, clinical medicine, industry, and public health. Thematic analysis of free-text responses by two independent authors will elicit items to be used during consensus generation. Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement groups will be convened to ensure that a comprehensive item list is generated that represents the public’s perspective. Each item will then be anonymously voted on by experts as to its importance and feasibility of implementation in screening during three rounds of a Delphi process. Consensus will be defined a priori at 70%, with items considered important and feasible being eligible for inclusion in the final recommendation. A list of desirable items (ie, important but not currently feasible) will be developed to guide future work. RESULTS The Institutional Review Board at Imperial College London has granted ethical approval for this study (reference 20IC6088). Results are expected to involve a list of recommendations to screening services, with findings being made available to screening services through Public Health England. This study will, thus, provide a formal guideline for the use of mobile messaging in screening services and will provide future directions in this field. CONCLUSIONS The use of mobile messaging has grown significantly across health care services, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic, but its implementation in screening programs remains challenging. This modified Delphi approach with leading experts will provide invaluable insights into facilitating the incorporation of messaging into these programs and will create awareness of future developments in this area. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/32660

scholarly journals Identifying and prioritising systematic review topics with public health stakeholders: A protocol for a modified Delphi study in Switzerland to inform future research agendas

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e015500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dyon Hoekstra ◽  
Margot Mütsch ◽  
Christina Kien ◽  
Ansgar Gerhardus ◽  
Stefan K Lhachimi
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Review Author ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Round ◽  
A Priority ◽  
The University

IntroductionThe Cochrane Collaboration aims to produce relevant and top priority evidence that responds to existing evidence gaps. Hence, research priority setting (RPS) is important to identify which potential research gaps are deemed most important. Moreover, RPS supports future health research to conform both health and health evidence needs. However, studies that are prioritising systematic review topics in public health are surprisingly rare. Therefore, to inform the research agenda of Cochrane Public Health Europe (CPHE), we introduce the protocol of a priority setting study on systematic review topics in several European countries, which is conceptualised as pilot.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a two-round modified Delphi study in Switzerland, incorporating an anonymous web-based questionnaire, to assess which topics should be prioritised for systematic reviews in public health. In the first Delphi round public health stakeholders will suggest relevant assessment criteria and potential priority topics. In the second Delphi round the participants indicate their (dis)agreement to the aggregated results of the first round and rate the potential review topics with the predetermined criteria on a four-point Likert scale. As we invite a wide variety of stakeholders we will compare the results between the different stakeholder groups.Ethics and disseminationWe have received ethical approval from the ethical board of the University of Bremen, Germany (principal investigation is conducted at the University of Bremen) and a certificate of non-objection from the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland (fieldwork will be conducted in Switzerland). The results of this study will be further disseminated through peer reviewed publication and will support systematic review author groups (i.a. CPHE) to improve the relevance of the groups´ future review work. Finally, the proposed priority setting study can be used as a framework by other systematic review groups when conducting a priority setting study in a different context.

Piloting the global capacity education e-tool: can capacity be taught to health care professionals across different international jurisdictions?

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmelle Peisah ◽  
Yaffa Lerman ◽  
Nathan Herrmann ◽  
Jeremy Rezmovitz ◽  
Kenneth Shulman
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Test Score ◽  
Aged Care ◽  
Care Physician ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Learning Platform ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Post Test

ABSTRACTDetermining decision-making capacity is part of everyday business for health care professionals working with older adults. We used a modified Delphi approach to develop an inclusive curriculum for a capacity education e-tool with global application and clinical relevance to a range of disciplines. The tool comprised: (i) 25 questions forming a “pre-test” for the adaptive and personalized e-Learning platform; (ii) a learning module based on the participant’s response to the “pre-test”; (iii) a “post-test” (the same baseline 25 questions) to test knowledge translation. The tool was tested on 31 health care professionals across Israel (8), Canada (15), and Australia (8) from the following disciplines: General Practitioners (GP) (19), Internal Medicine (1), Palliative Care GP (2); Palliative Care Physician (2), Geriatrician (2); and one of each: Psychologist, Occupational Therapist, Psychiatrist, Aged Care Researcher, and Aged Care Pharmacist. The mean baseline pre-test score was 19.1/25 (S.D. =1.61; range 15–22) and post-test score 21.7/25 (S.D.= 1.42; range 18–24); with a highly significant improvement in test scores (paired t-test P < 0.0001; t=10.81 on 30 df). This is the first such pilot study to demonstrate that generic capacity principles can be taught to health care professionals from different disciplines regardless of jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Improving physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep in COPD: perspectives of people with COPD and experts via a Delphi approach

PeerJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. e4604 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hayley Lewthwaite ◽  
Tanja W. Effing ◽  
Anke Lenferink ◽  
Tim Olds ◽  
Marie T. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
A Priori ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Multifactorial Approach

Background Little is known about how to achieve enduring improvements in physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour (SB) and sleep for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to: (1) identify what people with COPD from South Australia and the Netherlands, and experts from COPD- and non-COPD-specific backgrounds considered important to improve behaviours; and (2) identify areas of dissonance between these different participant groups. Methods A four-round Delphi study was conducted, analysed separately for each group. Free-text responses (Round 1) were collated into items within themes and rated for importance on a 9-point Likert scale (Rounds 2–3). Items meeting a priori criteria from each group were retained for rating by all groups in Round 4. Items and themes achieving a median Likert score of ≥7 and an interquartile range of ≤2 across all groups at Round 4 were judged important. Analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc tested for statistical differences between groups for importance ratings. Results Seventy-three participants consented to participate in this study, of which 62 (85%) completed Round 4. In Round 4, 81 items (PA n = 54; SB n = 24; sleep n = 3) and 18 themes (PA n = 9; SB n = 7; sleep n = 2) were considered important across all groups concerning: (1) symptom/disease management, (2) targeting behavioural factors, and (3) less commonly, adapting the social/physical environments. There were few areas of dissonance between groups. Conclusion Our Delphi participants considered a multifactorial approach to be important to improve PA, SB and sleep. Recognising and addressing factors considered important to recipients and providers of health care may provide a basis for developing behaviour-specific interventions leading to long-term behaviour change in people with COPD.

scholarly journals Minimum standards for reporting outcomes of surgery in urogynaecology

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Toozs-Hobson ◽  
Fiona Bach ◽  
J. Oliver Daly ◽  
Niels Klarskov
Keyword(s):  
Minimum Data Set ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Traffic Light ◽  
Data Set ◽  
The Third ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Minimum Data ◽  
Data Points

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis The IUGA special interest group (SIG) identified a need for a minimum data set (MDS) to inform outcome measurements to be included and simplify data capture and standardise reporting for data collection systems. To define a minimum data set for urogynaecological surgical registries. Methods Existing registries provide an inventory of items. A modified Delphi approach was used to identify a MDS. At each stage reviewers ranked data points and used free text to comment. The rating used a scale of 0–10 at each review and a traffic light system rated the scores as desirable, highly desirable and mandatory. The scores were collated and reported back to clinicians prior to the further rounds. Outliers were highlighted and reviewers re-assessed prior to repeating the process. A comparison of the MDS was made with published outcomes. Results Reviewers were from the outcome SIG with emphasis on widespread representation. Fifteen clinicians from eight countries were involved. Four reviewers dissected the existing databases. Eighty data points were considered in four categories, background, preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative. Consensus was reached by the third round. Two points were added on review (date of surgery and urodynamics). Three background points, five preoperative points, seven intraoperative points and nine postoperative points were identified giving 24 minimum data points in the final recommendation. Conclusions An MDS has been developed for urogynaecological surgical registries. These should be mandatory points which then allow larger varying points to be assessed. These points correspond well to data points used in published papers from established databases.

scholarly journals Consensus on pre-operative total knee replacement education and prehabilitation recommendations: a UK-based modified Delphi study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna M. Anderson ◽  
Christine Comer ◽  
Toby O. Smith ◽  
Benjamin T. Drew ◽  
Hemant Pandit ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Knee Replacement ◽  
Knee Replacement ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Definitive Evidence ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Importance Ratings ◽  
Total Knee

Abstract Background Over 90,000 total knee replacement (TKR) procedures are performed annually in the United Kingdom (UK). Patients awaiting TKR face long delays whilst enduring severe pain and functional limitations. Almost 20% of patients who undergo TKR are not satisfied post-operatively. Optimising pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation could help improve patient outcomes pre- and post-operatively; however, current pre-operative TKR care varies widely. Definitive evidence on the optimal content and delivery of pre-operative TKR care is lacking. This study aimed to develop evidence- and consensus-based recommendations on pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation. Methods A UK-based, three-round, online modified Delphi study was conducted with a 60-member expert panel. All panellists had experience of TKR services as patients (n = 30) or professionals (n = 30). Round 1 included initial recommendations developed from a mixed methods rapid review. Panellists rated the importance of each item on a five-point Likert scale. Panellists could also suggest additional items in Round 1. Rounds 2 and 3 included all items from Round 1, new items suggested in Round 1 and charts summarising panellists’ importance ratings from the preceding round. Free-text responses were analysed using content analysis. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. All items rated as ‘Important’ or ‘Very important’ by at least 70% of all respondents in Round 3 were included in the final set of recommendations. Results Fifty-five panellists (92%) (patients n = 26; professionals n = 29) completed Round 3. Eighty-six recommendation items were included in Round 1. Fifteen new items were added in Round 2. Rounds 2 and 3 therefore included 101 items. Seventy-seven of these reached consensus in Round 3. Six items reached consensus amongst patient or professional panellists only in Round 3. The final set of recommendations comprises 34 education topics, 18 education delivery approaches, 10 exercise types, 13 exercise delivery approaches and two other treatments. Conclusions This modified Delphi study developed a comprehensive set of recommendations that represent a useful resource for guiding decision-making on the content and delivery of pre-operative TKR education and prehabilitation. The recommendations will need to be interpreted and reviewed periodically in light of emerging evidence.

Determining Highly Desirable Traits of an Effective Emotional Freedom Techniques Practitioner: A Delphi Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-25
Author(s):  
Peta Stapleton ◽  
Hannah Chatwin
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Delphi Technique ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Core Elements ◽  
Modified Delphi Technique ◽  
Emotional Freedom Techniques ◽  
Many Core

Due to the distinct lack of definition surrounding the desirable attributes of an effective Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT) practitioner, this study utilized a modified Delphi technique to explore this. This method is designed to achieve a consensus amongst skilled panelists when an accepted body of literature is lacking. A three-round modified Delphi approach was used and participants were skilled in delivering EFT as a practitioner (N = 22). The first round was an open-ended series of questions derived from the literature, and responses to these initial questions were analyzed using content analysis (nVivo), with common themes identified and grouped together. These themes were then utilized to develop more specific quantitative questions (Likert format) to be used in the subsequent rounds. Consensus was set at 75% agreement on an item and was reached for 11 out of the 15 traits of an effective EFT practitioner identified in round 1. Consensus was also reached for seven out of the eight traits of an ineffective EFT practitioner, but was not reached for many core elements in training. These included adequate training, knowledge of other energy techniques, and the use of structured interviews, among other issues. Consensus was also not reached for the use of screening processes prior to training. These results are discussed in terms of standardization in EFT

scholarly journals Core functions for the public health nutrition workforce in Europe: a consensus study

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
pp. 1999-2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svandis Jonsdottir ◽  
Inga Thorsdottir ◽  
Susanna Kugelberg ◽  
Agneta Yngve ◽  
Nicholas P Kennedy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Health Workforce ◽  
International Studies ◽  
Public Health Nutrition ◽  
High Agreement ◽  
The Public ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Effective Public Health ◽  
Further Development

AbstractObjectiveTo assess and develop a consensus among a European panel of public health nutrition workforce stakeholders (academics and employers) regarding core functions required for effective public health nutrition practice.DesignA modified Delphi study involving data from two rounds of questionnaires administered among a panel of public health nutrition workforce stakeholders.SettingEurope.SubjectsA panel of fifty-three public health nutrition development stakeholders, including thirty-three academics and twenty employers, sampled from eighteen European countries.ResultsPanellists rated 50 % (19/38) of the initially listed functions as core (i.e. without which public health capacity is limited), using a majority cut-off (>50 %). Out of the nineteen core functions seven were categorised under the headingIntervention management, emphasising high agreement on the importance of managing interventions in public health nutrition work. Only one of the identified core public health nutrition functions was rated differently between academics and employers, suggesting consistent identification of core functions between stakeholder groups.ConclusionsThis consensus on core functions of the public health nutrition workforce in Europe can be used to promote a consistent understanding of the role and value of public health nutritionists as a discrete disciplinary sub-specialty of the public health workforce. The convergence of opinions of academics and employers, as well as comparison with previous international studies, indicates that there is a set of core public health nutrition functions transferable between countries that can be used as a benchmark to guide further development of the public health nutrition workforce in Europe.

scholarly journals An Environmental Scan of Canadian Quality Metrics for Patients on In-Center Hemodialysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 205435812097531
Author(s):  
Daniel Blum ◽  
Alison Thomas ◽  
Claire Harris ◽  
Jay Hingwala ◽  
William Beaubien-Souligny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Indicators ◽  
Quality Metrics ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Environmental Scan ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Effective Care ◽  
Starting Point

Background: Quality metrics or indicators help guide quality improvement work by reporting on measurable aspects of health care upon which improvement efforts can focus. For recipients of in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) in Canada, it is unclear what ICHD quality indicators exist and whether they adequately cover different domains of health care quality. Objectives: To identify and evaluate current Canadian ICHD quality metrics to document a starting point for future collaborations and standardization of quality improvement in Canada. Design: Environmental scan of quality metrics in ICHD, and subsequent indicator evaluation using a modified Delphi approach. Setting: Canadian ICHD units. Participants: Sixteen-member pan-Canadian working group with expertise in ICHD and quality improvement. Measurements: We classified the existing indicators based on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Donabedian frameworks. Methods: Each metric was rated by a 5-person subcommittee using a modified Delphi approach based on the American College of Physicians/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. We shared these consensus ratings with the entire 16-member panel for additional comments. Results: We identified 27 metrics that are tracked across 8 provinces, with only 9 (33%) tracked by multiple provinces (ie, more than 1 province). We rated 9 metrics (33%) as “necessary” to distinguish high-quality from low-quality care, of which only 2 were tracked by multiple provinces (proportion of patients by primary access and rate of vascular access-related bloodstream infections). Most (16/27, 59%) indicators assessed the IOM domains of safe or effective care, and none of the “necessary” indicators measured the IOM domains of timely, patient-centered, or equitable care. Limitations: The environmental scan is a nonexhaustive list of quality indicators in Canada. The panel also lacked representation from patients, administrators, and allied health professionals, with more representation from academic sites. Conclusions: Quality indicators in Canada mainly focus on safe and effective care, with little provincial overlap. These results highlight current gaps in quality of care measurement for ICHD, and this initial work should provide programs with a starting point to combine highly rated indicators with newly developed indicators into a concise balanced scorecard that supports quality improvement initiatives across all aspects of ICHD care. Trial Registration: not applicable.

Checklist for the Systemic Treatment of Psoriasis Using Biologics: A Delphi Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 282-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Fahim ◽  
Ben Whan Kim ◽  
Marc Bourcier ◽  
Steven Glassman ◽  
Melinda Gooderham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Study ◽  
Biologic Therapy ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Psoriasis Treatment ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Approach ◽  
Standardized Documentation ◽  
Item Checklist ◽  
History Of ◽  
Synoptic Reporting

Background: Despite the complexity of psoriasis treatment using biologic therapy, there does not exist a standardized synoptic reporting form for the initiation of this population. The purpose of this study was to use a modified Delphi approach to develop a standard checklist for the standardized documentation of patients receiving systemic biologic therapy for psoriasis. Methods: A modified Delphi survey was conducted over 3 rounds (February 2017 through January 2018). An expert panel generated a 51-item checklist that was proposed to participants. Items were rated on an anchored 1-7 Likert scale. Consensus was defined apriori as ≥ 70% agreement by respondents. Results: A total of 58, 17, and 18 dermatologists participated in 3 consecutive Delphi rounds, respectively. Only half of the dermatologists surveyed reported using a checklist for the management of psoriasis. The final checklist comprised 19, 5, 6, and 9 items pertaining to patient history; physical exam and history of systemic therapy; vaccinations; and lab investigations and bloodwork, respectively. Conclusions: Given the increasing availability and complexity of biologic agents for psoriasis treatment, there is a need to promote standardized documentation for this population. The Checklist for the Systemic Treatment of Psoriasis presents 38 items that should be considered when initiating patients with psoriasis on biologic therapy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document