Research Competencies in Counseling: A Delphi Study

Assessment of Critical Health and Safety Risks in Homes where Hoarding is Prevalent

Hoarding behaviour sometimes requires intervention from community agencies to reduce risks to residents and the nearby community. Human services professionals from a wide range of disciplines are called upon to address hoarding concerns, often in collaboration with each other. No guidelines currently exist to guide staff from those community agencies in a shared understanding of common health and safety risks that occur with severe hoarding behaviour. Using a modified Delphi method, we aimed to generate consensus among a panel of 34 service-provider experts from a range of disciplines on essential risks in the home that would require intervention for health or safety reasons. This process identified 31 environmental risk factors that experts agreed are critical to assess in cases of hoarding. Panelist comments outlined the debates that commonly occur in the field, the complexity of hoarding, and the difficulty with conceptualizing risks in the home. The multi-disciplinary consensus achieved on these risks will facilitate better collaboration between agencies by providing a minimum standard of what to evaluate in hoarded homes to ensure health and safety standards are being met. This can improve communication between agencies, specify the core hazards that should be incorporated into training for professionals who work with hoarding, and facilitate more standardized assessment of health and safety risks in hoarded homes.

Mentoring in research: development of competencies for health professionals

BACKGROUND

Mentoring programmes in health research are beneficial for both mentors and mentees and are essential for the development of the next generation of research leaders. This study describes the self-assessment of research skills in health professionals participating in a research mentoring programme and determines the correlation between the participants' self-assessment of research skills and professional characteristics.

METHOD

This was a quasi-experimental, time-series study conducted in a Brazilian tertiary hospital. Thirty-five health professionals holding a master's or PhD degree were included. The participants answered a survey in which they self-assessed their research skills distributed into eight domains, with one group responding before training and another group responding after training. The level of significance was set at 5% (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Those who received training scored better in research skills related to two domains: critical analysis of the literature and identification of appropriate research methods (p = 0.0245).

CONCLUSION

Trained professionals performed better in the domains of critical thinking and knowledge and management of steps in the research process.

Prioritising Climate Change Mitigation Behaviours and Exploring Public Health Co-Benefits: A Delphi Study

Climate change requires urgent action; however, it can be challenging to identify individual-level behaviours that should be prioritised for maximum impact. The study aimed to prioritise climate change mitigation behaviours according to their impacts on climate change and public health, and to identify associated barriers and facilitators-exploring the impact of observed behaviour shifts associated with COVID-19 in the UK. A three-round Delphi study and expert workshop were conducted: An expert panel rated mitigation behaviours impacted by COVID-19 in relation to their importance regarding health impacts and climate change mitigation using a five-point Likert scale. Consensus on the importance of target behaviours was determined by interquartile ranges. In total, seven target behaviours were prioritised: installing double/triple glazing; installing cavity wall insulation; installing solid wall insulation; moving away from meat/emission heavy diets; reducing the number of cars per household; walking shorter journeys; and reducing day/weekend leisure car journeys. Barriers related to the costs associated with performing behaviours and a lack of complementary policy-regulated subsidies. The target behaviours are consistent with recommendations from previous research. To ensure public uptake, interventions should address behavioural facilitators and barriers, dovetail climate change mitigation with health co-benefits and account for the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on these behaviours.

Using a Delphi survey to gain an international consensus on the challenges of conducting trials with adults with intellectual disabilities

BACKGROUND/AIMS

People with intellectual disability experience higher rates of multi-morbidity and health inequalities, they are frequently prescribed medications and more likely to have an avoidable or premature death. There is a recognised lack of randomised controlled trials, and subsequently a lack of evidence base, for many of the interventions and treatments provided to people with intellectual disabilities. Very few disability-specific trials are conducted, and people with intellectual, and other cognitive, disabilities are routinely excluded from mainstream trials. There is an urgent need to facilitate more disability-specific trials or to encourage mainstream trialists to include people with disabilities in their studies. Obtaining a thorough understanding of the challenges inherent in these trials, and sharing this knowledge within the research community, may contribute significantly towards addressing this need. The aim of this study was to explore the practical and methodological challenges to conducting trials with adults with intellectual disabilities and to reach a consensus regarding which are the most important challenges for researchers for inclusion in a resource toolkit.

METHODS

A three-round modified Delphi survey was conducted with a panel of international trials researchers within the intellectual disability field. Items were assessed in terms of the consensus level and stability of responses.

RESULTS

A total of 64 challenges and barriers were agreed upon, across all aspects of the trial pathway, from planning through to reporting. Some challenges and barriers had been noted in the literature previously, but many previously uncited barriers (both systemic and attitudinal) were identified.

CONCLUSION

This is the first international survey exploring the experiences of researchers conducting randomised controlled trials with adults with intellectual disabilities. Many of the barriers and challenges reported can be overcome with creativity and some additional resources. Other challenges, including attitudes towards conducting trials with disabled populations, maybe harder to overcome. These findings have implications for conducting trials with other populations with cognitive or communication difficulties. Implications for disability researchers, funding bodies and ethical review panels are discussed.