Using an Online, Modified Delphi Approach to Engage Patients and Caregivers in Determining the Patient-Centeredness of Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Care Considerations

Using the Delphi Process to Prioritize an Agenda for Care Transition Research for Patients With Substance Use Disorders

Medical hospitalizations are increasingly recognized as important opportunities to engage individuals with substance use disorders (SUD) and offer treatment. While a growing number of hospitals have instituted interventions to support the provision of SUD care during medical admissions, post-hospitalization transitions of care remain a challenge for patients and clinicians and an understudied area of SUD care. Evidence is lacking on the most effective and feasible models of care to improve post-hospitalization care transitions for people with SUD. In the absence of strong empirical evidence to guide practice and policy, consensus-based research methods such as the Delphi process can play an important role in efficiently prioritizing existing models of care for future study and implementation. We conducted a Delphi study that convened a group of 25 national interdisciplinary experts with direct clinical experience facilitating post-hospitalization care transitions for people with SUD. Our panelists rated 10 existing care transition models according to anticipated effectiveness and facility of implementation based on the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework. Qualitative data on each care model were also gathered through comments and an online moderated discussion board. Our results help establish a hierarchy of SUD care transition models to inform future study and program development.

How can outdoor sports protect themselves against climate change-related health risks? - A prevention model based on an expert Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

To systematically develop an adaptation model to reduce climate change-related health risks for outdoor athletes.

DESIGN

Delphi Method study.

METHODS

A classic asynchronous Delphi study was conducted with a total of three survey rounds. 24 experts from the eight largest outdoor sport associations by membership in the German Olympic Sports Confederation were included as well as 24 medical experts with expertise in sport medicine, internal medicine, allergology, dermatology, infectiology, or toxicology. Based on open-ended questions, panelists were asked to consider prevention measures for sport organizations and clubs. Free text responses were analyzed by qualitative content analysis according to Mayring.

RESULTS

Experts recommended establishing the following eight fields of prevention measures: technical and structural measures; organizational measures; personalized measures; basic, advanced, and continuing education; concepts of action, warning concepts, and financial concepts; cooperation and coordination; campaigns; and evaluation measures.

CONCLUSIONS

The pyramid model presented in this study systematizes possible sport-specific adaptation measures on climate change by empirical aggregation of knowledge from scientists, sport organizations, clubs, trainers, and professional athletes. To assess the effectiveness of these prevention measures, sport organizations may incorporate them not only into broader operations but also everyday training routines.

Expert consensus-based guidance on approaches to opioid management in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use

BACKGROUND

Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis.

METHODS

The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

Development, validation, and usage of metrics to evaluate the quality of clinical research hypotheses

Objectives

Metrics and instruments can provide guidance for clinical researchers to assess their potential research projects at an early stage before significant investment. Furthermore, metrics can also provide structured criteria for peer reviewers to assess others' clinical research manuscripts or grant proposals. This study aimed to develop, test, validate, and use evaluation metrics and instruments to accurately, consistently, and conveniently assess the quality of scientific hypotheses for clinical research projects.

Materials and Methods

Metrics development went through iterative stages, including literature review, metrics and instrument development, internal and external testing and validation, and continuous revisions in each stage based on feedback. Furthermore, two experiments were conducted to determine brief and comprehensive versions of the instrument.

Results

The brief version of the instrument contained three dimensions: validity, significance, and feasibility. The comprehensive version of metrics included novelty, clinical relevance, potential benefits and risks, ethicality, testability, clarity, interestingness, and the three dimensions of the brief version. Each evaluation dimension included 2 to 5 subitems to evaluate the specific aspects of each dimension. For example, validity included clinical validity and scientific validity. The brief and comprehensive versions of the instruments included 12 and 39 subitems, respectively. Each subitem used a 5-point Likert scale.

Conclusion

The validated brief and comprehensive versions of metrics can provide standardized, consistent, and generic measurements for clinical research hypotheses, allow clinical researchers to prioritize their research ideas systematically, objectively, and consistently, and can be used as a tool for quality assessment during the peer review process.

Consensus-Based Guidance on Opioid Management in Individuals With Advanced Cancer-Related Pain and Opioid Misuse or Use Disorder

Importance

Opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) are important comorbidities in people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, but there is a lack of consensus on treatment.

Objective

To develop consensus among palliative care and addiction specialists on the appropriateness of various opioid management strategies in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid misuse or OUD.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this qualitative study, using ExpertLens, an online platform and methodology for conducting modified Delphi panels, between August and October 2020, we conducted 2 modified Delphi panels to understand the perspectives of palliative and addiction clinicians on 3 common clinical scenarios varying by prognosis (weeks to months vs months to years). Of the 129 invited palliative or addiction medicine specialists, 120 participated in at least 1 round. A total of 84 participated in all 3 rounds.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Consensus was investigated for 3 clinical scenarios: (1) a patient with a history of an untreated opioid use disorder, (2) a patient taking more opioid than prescribed, and (3) a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines.

Results

Participants were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 (78 [65%]), and held MD/DO degrees (115 [96%]). For a patient with untreated OUD, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone and inappropriate to refer to a methadone clinic. Beginning split-dose methadone was deemed appropriate for patients with shorter prognoses and of uncertain appropriateness for those with longer prognoses. Beginning a full opioid agonist was deemed of uncertain appropriateness for those with a short prognosis and inappropriate for those with a longer prognosis. Regardless of prognosis, for a patient with no medical history of OUD taking more opioids than prescribed, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids, and of uncertain appropriateness to increase the patient's opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone. For a patient with a urine drug test positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids and prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps.

Improving Mental Health Guardianship: From Prevention to Treatment

OBJECTIVE

The authors sought to identify the most promising strategies for improving the mental health guardianship process in Los Angeles County for adults with mental illness who are gravely disabled.

METHODS

In May and June 2019, 56 experts, working in hospitals or outpatient facilities or representing legal, advocacy, policy, or forensic organizations, participated in an online modified-Delphi panel, rating the ethical appropriateness, impact on care quality, efficiency, and feasibility of nine strategies for improvement of mental health guardianship. Agreement was determined with the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method, and comments were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

The strategy ranked highest by the participating experts was improving the administrative functioning and judicial processes of entities involved in mental health guardianship proceedings-it was the only strategy that achieved agreement among panelists and was rated highly on all four criteria. Other preferred strategies were enhancing the ability of assertive outpatient mental health teams to serve individuals before they experience a crisis and expanding the continuum of unlocked residential treatment settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities exist to improve all stages of the mental health guardianship process. Experts favored strategies that streamline administrative processes, facilitate community integration into treatment, and ensure fidelity to best practices. Improving the mental health guardianship process has the potential to speed up delivery of services, better manage resources, and increase access to treatment for individuals with mental illness who are gravely disabled.

Update to the Canadian clinical practice guideline for best-practice management of breast cancer-related lymphedema: study protocol

BACKGROUND

One of the more frequent complications following treatment for breast cancer, lymphedema is a substantial swelling of the arm, breast and chest wall that occurs on the side where lymph nodes were removed. The aim of this work is to update recommendations on the prevention, diagnosis and management of lymphedema related to breast cancer.

METHODS

We present the protocol for an update of the 2001 clinical practice guideline on lymphedema from the Steering Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. We will use a patient-oriented research approach with a focus on self-management and the positive health model to inform the updated guideline development. The methods proposed will be undertaken with consideration of the standards outlined in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. The literature will be appraised by evaluating existing guidelines from other countries, the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses and direct evidence from clinical studies. We will manage competing interests according to Guidelines International Network principles. Recommendations will be presented using an actionable statement format and will be linked to the level of evidence along with any relevant considerations used in formulation. A draft of the guideline will be produced by the steering committee then sent out to international experts and stakeholder groups for feedback.

INTERPRETATION

The primary benefit of this clinical guideline will be to improve the quality of care of women with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Findings will be disseminated at national and international conferences and through webinars and educational videos hosted on the websites of the supporting organizations.

Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become increasingly important in the development, delivery and improvement of healthcare. PPI is used in healthcare innovation; yet, how it is used has been under-reported. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the current available empirical evidence on the role of PPI during different stages of healthcare innovation.

METHODS

The scoping review was conducted in accordance with PRISMAScR and included any study published in a peer-reviewed journal between 2004 and 2021 that reported on PPI in healthcare innovation within any healthcare setting or context in any country. The following databases were searched: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, HMIC and Google Scholar. We included any study type, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-method studies. We excluded theoretical frameworks, conceptual, scientific or grey literature as well as discussion and opinion papers.

RESULTS

Of the 87 included studies, 81 (93%) focused on or were conducted by authors in developed countries. A wide range of conditions were considered, with more studies focusing on mental health (n = 18, 21%) and cancer care (n = 8, 9%). The vast majority of the studies focused on process and service innovations (n = 62, 71%). Seven studies focused on technological and clinical innovations (8%), while 12 looked at both technological and service innovations (14%). Only five studies examined systems innovation (5%) and one study looked across all types of innovations (1%). PPI is more common in the earlier stages of innovation, particularly problem identification and invention, in comparison to adoption and diffusion.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare innovation tends to be a lengthy process. Yet, our study highlights that PPI is more common across earlier stages of innovation and focuses mostly on service innovation. Stronger PPI in later stages could support the adoption and diffusion of innovation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

One of the coauthors of the paper (S. S.) is a service user with extensive experience in PPI research. S. S. supported the analysis and writing up of the paper.

Development of a Metric to Detect and Decrease Low-Value Prescribing in Older Adults

IMPORTANCE

Metrics that detect low-value care in common forms of health care data, such as administrative claims or electronic health records, primarily focus on tests and procedures but not on medications, representing a major gap in the ability to systematically measure low-value prescribing.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a scalable and broadly applicable metric that contains a set of quality indicators (EVOLV-Rx) for use in health care data to detect and reduce low-value prescribing among older adults and that is informed by diverse stakeholders' perspectives.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study used an online modified-Delphi method to convene an expert panel of 15 physicians and pharmacists. This panel, comprising clinicians, health system leaders, and researchers, was tasked with rating and discussing candidate low-value prescribing practices that were derived from medication safety criteria; peer-reviewed literature; and qualitative studies of patient, caregiver, and physician perspectives. The RAND ExpertLens online platform was used to conduct the activities of the panel. The panelists were engaged for 3 rounds between January 1 and March 31, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate and then discuss the scientific validity and clinical usefulness of the criteria to detect low-value prescribing practices. Candidate low-value prescribing practices were rated as follows: 1 to 3, indicating low validity or usefulness; 3.5 to 6, uncertain validity or usefulness; and 6.5 to 9, high validity or usefulness. Agreement among panelists and the degree of scientific validity and clinical usefulness were assessed using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS

Of the 527 low-value prescribing recommendations identified, 27 discrete candidate low-value prescribing practices were considered for inclusion in EVOLV-Rx. After round 1, 18 candidate practices were rated by the panel as having high scientific validity and clinical usefulness (scores of ≥6.5). After round 2 panel deliberations, the criteria to detect 19 candidate practices were revised. After round 3, 18 candidate practices met the inclusion criteria, receiving final median scores of 6.5 or higher for both scientific validity and clinical usefulness. Of those practices that were not included in the final version of EVOLV-Rx, 3 received high scientific validity (scores ≥6.5) but uncertain clinical usefulness (scores <6.5) ratings, whereas 6 received uncertain scientific validity rating (scores <6.5).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study culminated in the development of EVOLV-Rx and involved a panel of experts who identified the 18 most salient low-value prescribing practices in the care of older adults. Applying EVOLV-Rx may enhance the detection of low-value prescribing practices, reduce polypharmacy, and enable older adults to receive high-value care across the full spectrum of health services.

Expert Panel Consensus on Management of Advanced Cancer-Related Pain in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder

IMPORTANCE

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity in individuals with advanced cancer, in whom pain is common. Full-agonist opioid medications are the cornerstone of cancer pain management, but the existing literature does not address how to manage cancer pain in patients with OUD.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct an expert panel to develop consensus on the appropriateness of management of cancer pain in individuals with co-occurring advanced cancer and OUD.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A 3-round modified Delphi process was completed from August to October 2020 with 2 cases: patient with advanced cancer, pain, and OUD treated with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone. Participants rated management strategies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final responses in round 3. ExpertLens, an online approach to conducting modified Delphi panels, was used. Participants were experts in palliative care, addiction, or both, recruited by email from palliative care and addiction-focused professional groups, lists from prior studies, and snowball sampling. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to July 2021.

FINDINGS

Of 120 experts (median age, 40-49 years), most were White (78 participants [94%]), female (74 participants [62%]), and held MD or DO degrees (115 participants [96%]); 84 (70%) participated in all rounds. For a patient with OUD taking buprenorphine-naloxone, it was deemed appropriate to continue buprenorphine-naloxone with thrice-daily dosing. Continuing buprenorphine-naloxone and adding a full-agonist opioid was deemed to be appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for patients with a prognosis of months to years. For a patient with OUD taking methadone dispensed at a methadone clinic, it was deemed appropriate to take over prescribing and dose twice or thrice daily. Continuing methadone daily while adding another full-agonist opioid was deemed appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for those with a prognosis of months to years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed, consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps needed to facilitate implementation.

Evaluating the Acceptability, Feasibility, and Outcomes of Two Methods Involving Patients With Disability in Developing Clinical Guidelines: Crossover Pilot Study

Background

Engaging patients and the public in clinical practice guideline (CPG) development is believed to contribute significantly to guideline quality, but the advantages of the various co-design strategies have not been empirically compared, making it difficult to choose one strategy over another.

Objective

This pilot study aims to document the acceptability, feasibility, and outcomes of 2 methods of involving patients in outlining CPG.

Methods

A single-blind crossover pragmatic study was performed with patients with traumatic brain injury. The patients experimented with 2 alternative methods of producing clinical practice recommendations (ie, a discussion group and a wiki). The participants rated the acceptability of the 2 methods, and feasibility was assessed using indicators, such as the number of participants who completed the 2 methods and the number of support interventions required. Experts, blinded to the method, independently rated the participants' outcome recommendations for clarity, accuracy, appropriateness, and usefulness.

Results

We recruited 20 participants, and 16 completed the study. The acceptability of the 2 methods showed little variation, with qualitative comments expressing a slight preference for the social nature of focus groups. Thus, both methods of involving patients in CPG development appeared feasible, and the experts’ opinions of the adapted recommendations were both positive, although the recommendations produced through focus groups were deemed more relevant to support clinical practice.

Conclusions

Our results confirm the acceptability and feasibility of focus groups and wikis to allow patients with traumatic brain injury to participate in clinical practice guideline production. This study contributes to the scientific literature by suggesting that the 2 methods were acceptable, feasible, and produced positive outcomes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02023138; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02023138

Informing the Development of a Standardized Clinical Definition of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome: Protocol for a Modified-Delphi Expert Panel

Background

Neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) is a postnatal withdrawal syndrome that most commonly results from prenatal opioid exposure. Every 15 minutes, an infant is born in the United States with signs of NAS. The field lacks a standardized clinical definition of NAS, complicating discussions on programmatic and policy development to support opioid-exposed mothers and infants.

Objective

The goal of this paper is to describe a protocol for a systematic expert panel process to inform the development of a clinical definition of NAS.

Methods

We will conduct two three-round online modified-Delphi panels using the ExpertLens system and will follow the recommendations for Conducting and REporting of DElphi Studies (CREDES). One panel will focus on developing key components of a clinical definition of NAS, and the second panel will focus on neonatal opioid withdrawal syndrome (NOWS), which is a term that has come into use to differentiate opioid-exposed infants from infants exposed to other substances in utero. However, there is lack of agreement on the precise clinical definition of NOWS and how it is distinct from or overlaps with NAS. Each panel will complete two rating rounds and a discussion round using a similar protocol. We will analyze all rating data descriptively and determine the presence of agreement within and between the two panels. We will also perform thematic analysis of the qualitative comments to contextualize the panel findings.

Results

The panels were convened between October 29 and December 17, 2020. Their results were disseminated and discussed at a national conference on NAS that took place on March 17-18, 2021.

Conclusions

A standardized clinical definition of NAS will help to better characterize NAS incidence and to design effective clinical, public health, and policy interventions to support opioid-exposed mother-infant dyads.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/25387

Patient Characteristics Associated With Self-Reported Adherence to Chiropractic Treatment Recommendations: A Feasibility Study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of developing and administering a patient adherence survey to assess self-reported adherence to treatment recommendations from a chiropractic doctor within an academic health center.

METHODS

The survey items were developed by the authors and vetted by the university's students and faculty, who serve as health care practitioners at an academic health center. Adult patients with spine pain who were seen by a doctor of chiropractic at an academic health center were included in this survey study. A 32-item survey was administered between October 2019 and March 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 62 respondents completed the anonymous survey. We found that 89% of respondents adhered to their clinic appointments. Although 82% of respondents said that their doctor's recommendation made sense, only 44% reported completely following treatment recommendations for at-home stretching and exercise.

CONCLUSION

This study determined that it is feasible to assess patient self-reported adherence to chiropractic treatment within an academic health center setting. In our sample we found that although patient adherence to clinic appointments was high, adherence to treatments was not.

Rating the seriousness of maternal and child health outcomes linked with pregnancy weight gain

BACKGROUND

Current pregnancy weight gain guidelines were developed based on implicit assumptions of a small group of experts about the relative seriousness of adverse health outcomes. Therefore, they will not necessarily reflect the values of women.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the seriousness of 11 maternal and child health outcomes that have been consistently associated with pregnancy weight gain by engaging patients and health professionals.

METHODS

We collected data using an online panel approach with a modified Delphi structure. We selected a purposeful sample of maternal and child health professionals (n = 84) and women who were pregnant or recently postpartum (patients) (n = 82) in the United States as panellists. We conducted three concurrent panels: professionals only, patients only, and patients and professionals. During a 3-round online modified Delphi process, participants rated the seriousness of health outcomes (Round 1), reviewed and discussed the initial results (Round 2), and revised their original ratings (Round 3). Panellists assigned seriousness ratings (0, [not serious] to 100 [most serious]) for infant death, stillbirth, preterm birth, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, small-for-gestational-age (SGA) birth, large-for-gestational-age (LGA) birth, unplanned caesarean delivery, maternal obesity, childhood obesity, and maternal metabolic syndrome.

RESULTS

Each panel individually came to a consensus on all seriousness ratings. The final median seriousness ratings combined across all panels were highest for infant death (100), stillbirth (95), preterm birth (80), and preeclampsia (80). Obesity in children, metabolic syndrome in women, obesity in women, and gestational diabetes had median seriousness ratings ranging from 55 to 65. The lowest seriousness ratings were for SGA birth, LGA birth, and unplanned caesarean delivery (30-40).

CONCLUSION

Professionals and women rate some adverse outcomes as being more serious than others. These ratings can be used to establish the range of pregnancy weight gain associated with the lowest risk of a broad range of maternal and child health outcomes.

Consensus-based approach to managing opioids, including opioid misuse and opioid use disorder, in patients with serious illness: protocol for a modified Delphi process

INTRODUCTION

Management of opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) among individuals with serious illness is an important yet understudied issue. Palliative care clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness, many of whom may live for months or years, describe a complex tension between weighing the benefits of opioids, which are considered a cornerstone of pain management in serious illness, and serious opioid-related harms like opioid misuse and OUD. And yet, little literature exists to inform the management of opioid misuse and OUDs among individuals with serious illness. Our objective is to provide evidence-based management guidance to clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who develop opioid misuse or OUD.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We chose a modified Delphi approach, which is appropriate when empirical evidence is lacking and expert input must be used to shape clinical guidance. We sought to recruit 60 clinicians with expertise in palliative care, addiction or both to participate in this study. We created seven patient cases that capture important management challenges in individuals with serious illness prescribed opioid therapy. We used ExpertLens, an online platform for conducting modified Delphi panels. Participants completed three rounds of data collection. In round 1, they rated and commented on the appropriateness of management choices for cases. In round 2, participants reviewed and discussed their own and other participants' round 1 numerical responses and comments. In round 3 (currently ongoing), participants again reviewed rounds 1 and 2, and are allowed to change their final numerical responses. We used ExpertLens to automatically identify whether there is consensus, or disagreement, among responses in panels. Only round 3 responses will be used to assess final consensus and disagreement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project received ethical approval from the University of Pittsburgh's Institutional Review Board (study 19110301) and the RAND Institutional Research Board (study 2020-0142). Guidance from this work will be disseminated through national stakeholder networks to gain buy-in and endorsement. This study will also form the basis of an implementation toolkit for clinicians caring for individuals with serious illness who are at risk of opioid misuse or OUD.

Nature and Predictors of Response Changes in Modified-Delphi Panels

OBJECTIVES

To describe the extent and nature of changes in participants' responses after exposure to group feedback and discussion in modified-Delphi panels and to identify factors affecting those changes.

METHODS

We analyzed data from 2 online modified-Delphi panels, each consisting of 2 rating rounds and an online discussion round. We included responses from 55 participants who answered 38 questions in both rating rounds. Because not all participants answered each question twice, our sample consisted of 1846 cases (response changes). We used mixed-effect logistic and multinomial logistic regression to identify factors predicting response changes and their direction relative to group median-our consensus measure.

RESULTS

Participants changed, on average, 49% of their responses. A response was changed in 47% of the 1846 cases: 28% of responses were changed toward consensus and 19% away from it. Although some measures of subjective participation experiences had a marginally significant impact on the propensity and direction of response changes, several objective measures of discussion engagement were statistically significant predictors of both the presence and direction of response changes.

CONCLUSION

Our results illustrate the nature of response changes and highlight the importance of exposing participants to alternative perspectives and encouraging them to explain their perspectives.

Standardizing care to manage bleeding disorders in adolescents with heavy menses-A joint project from the ISTH pediatric/neonatal and women's health SSCs

BACKGROUND

Bleeding disorders (BD) are under-recognized in adolescents with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

OBJECTIVES

The lack of clinical guidelines and variable symptomatic management of HMB created the imperative to standardize HMB care to identify and manage BD in adolescents.

METHODS

We convened an international working group (WG), utilized the results of a literature review to define knowledge gaps in HMB care, and used the collective clinical experience of the WG to develop care considerations for adolescents with BD and HMB. We then solicited input on the appropriateness of HMB care considerations from expert stakeholders representing hematology, adolescent medicine, and obstetrics-gynecology. We conducted an expert panel online, using the ExpertLens platform. During a three-round online modified-Delphi process, the expert panel rated the appropriateness of 21 care considerations using a 9-point scale to designate care as appropriate (7-9), uncertain (4-6), or inappropriate (1-3) covering screening for BD, the laboratory work-up, and management of adolescents with BD that present with HMB. We used the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to determine the existence of consensus among the interdisciplinary panel of experts.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine experts participated in the panel. The experts rated fifteen HMB care considerations as appropriate, six as uncertain, and none as inappropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

The HMB care statements represent the first set of HMB care considerations in adolescents with BD, developed with broad expert input on appropriateness. Although likely to be of interest to a range of clinicians who routinely manage adolescents with HMB, additional research is required in many key areas.

ADAPT study: adaptation of evidence-informed complex population health interventions for implementation and/or re-evaluation in new contexts: protocol for a Delphi consensus exercise to develop guidance

INTRODUCTION

Complex population health interventions that are effective in one context may not be effective elsewhere, and may even be harmful. As such, an intervention may require adaptation to ensure it fits with a new context. To date, there is no overarching guidance to help researchers to adapt and evaluate interventions in new contexts, and no criteria to support research funders or journals assess proposed or reported adaptations or evaluation. There is limited assistance for policy-makers and practitioners to decide if evidence-informed interventions are appropriate to their context, or if adaptation and further evaluation is needed. This Delphi exercise will contribute to the development of guidance for these communities to support the adaptation, implementation and/or re-evaluation of complex population health interventions in new contexts.

METHODS

We will conduct a Delphi consensus exercise to gather expert opinion from researchers, research funders, journal editors and policy-makers. Expert opinion will be sought on: appropriate definitions and concepts, identifying key methodological considerations and establishing adaptations and processes to be undertaken during adaptation of complex population health interventions in new contexts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for the Delphi exercise has been obtained from the University of Glasgow and and the RAND institutional research board. Dissemination of the results of this study will be through peer-reviewed publications, workshops at national and international conferences, and a summary of the guidance developed for key organisations and stakeholders.

Engaging Patients and Professionals to Evaluate the Seriousness of Maternal and Child Health Outcomes: Protocol for a Modified Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Maternal weight gain during pregnancy is one of the few potentially modifiable risk factors for many adverse maternal and child health outcomes. Defining the optimal pregnancy weight gain range is difficult because, while lower weight gain may prevent some outcomes, such as maternal and child obesity, it may increase the risk of others such as fetal growth restriction and infant death. These health outcomes vary in their seriousness to mothers and their health care providers, and these differences in seriousness should be taken into account when determining optimal weight gain ranges. However, the relative seriousness that women and their care providers place on different health outcomes is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We will determine the seriousness of 11 maternal and child health outcomes that have been consistently associated with pregnancy weight gain. We will achieve this by engaging patients and maternal and child health professionals using an online modified Delphi panel process.

METHODS

We aim to recruit a racially/ethnically and geographically diverse group of 90 US maternal and child health professionals and 90 women who are pregnant or less than 2 years postpartum. We will conduct 3 concurrent panels using the ExpertLens system, a previously evaluated online modified Delphi system that combines 2 rounds of rating with 1 round of feedback and moderated online discussion. In Round 1, panelists are asked to rate the seriousness of each health outcome on a scale of 0-100 and to provide a rationale for their scores. In Round 2, panelists will review their responses relative to those of other panelists. They will discuss their seriousness ratings anonymously using a moderated online discussion board. In Round 3, participants will revise their Round 1 responses based on group feedback and discussion. Each round will be open for 1-2 weeks.

RESULTS

The study protocol was reviewed by our ethics boards and did not require approval as human research. A pilot study of 6 professionals and 7 patients was completed in December 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Our numeric estimates of the seriousness of maternal and child health outcomes will enable future studies to determine pregnancy weight gain ranges that balance the risks of low and high weight gain for mothers and children.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/16478.