Ethics and Science in the Participatory Era: A Vignette-Based Delphi Study

Identifying priority areas to support primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care: A Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Existing approaches in cancer survivorship care delivery have proven to be insufficient to engage primary care. This study aimed to identify stakeholder-informed priorities to improve primary care engagement in breast cancer survivorship care.

METHODS

Experts in U.S. cancer survivorship care delivery were invited to participate in a 4-round online Delphi panel to identify and evaluate priorities for defining and fostering primary care's engagement in breast cancer survivorship. Panelists were asked to identify and then assess (ratings of 1-9) the importance and feasibility of priority items to support primary care engagement in survivorship. Panelists were asked to review the group results and reevaluate the importance and feasibility of each item, aiming to reach consensus.

RESULTS

Respondent panelists (n = 23, response rate 57.5%) identified 31 priority items to support survivorship care. Panelists consistently rated three items most important (scored 9) but with uncertain feasibility (scored 5-6). These items emphasized the need to foster connections and improve communication between primary care and oncology. Panelists reached consensus on four items evaluated as important and feasible: (1) educating patients on survivorship, (2) enabling screening reminders and monitoring alerts in the electronic medical record, (3) identifying patient resources for clinicians to recommend, and (4) distributing accessible reference guides of common breast cancer drugs.

CONCLUSION

Role clarity and communication between oncology and primary care were rated as most important; however, uncertainty about feasibility remains. These findings indicate that cross-disciplinary capacity building to address feasibility issues may be needed to make the most important priority items actionable in primary care.

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

Purpose. To determine the patient-centeredness of endocrine and bone health Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) care considerations using the RAND/PPMD Patient-Centeredness Method (RPM), which is a novel, online, modified-Delphi approach to engaging patients and caregivers in clinical guideline development. Methods. We solicited input on the patient-centeredness of care considerations from 28 individuals with DMD and 94 caregivers, randomly assigned to 1 of 2 mixed panels. During a 3-round online modified-Delphi process, participants rated the importance and acceptability of 19 DMD care considerations (round 1), reviewed and discussed the initial results (round 2), and revised their original ratings (round 3). Patient-centeredness was operationalized as importance and acceptability of recommendations. We considered a care consideration to be patient-centered if both panels deemed it important and acceptable. Results. Ninety-five panelists (78%) participated in this study. Of these, 88 (93%) participated in round 1, 74 (78%) in round 2, and 56 (59%) in round 3. Panelists deemed 12 care considerations to be patient-centered: 3 weight management, 3 bone health, 4 vertical growth, and 2 puberty recommendations. Seven care considerations did not meet patient-centeredness criteria. Common reasons were lack of evidence specific to DMD and concerns about insurance coverage, access to treatment, and patient safety. Conclusions. Using the RPM, Duchenne families considered most care considerations to be patient-centered. Besides being clinically appropriate, these considerations are likely to be consistent with the preferences, needs, and values of Duchenne families. While all relevant care considerations should be discussed during patient-provider encounters, those that did not meet patient-centeredness criteria in particular should be carefully considered as part of joint decision making between Duchenne families and their providers. Study Registration: HSRProj 20163126.

Management of non-consensually shared youth-produced sexual images: A Delphi study with adolescents as experts

There is an increased availability of online child abuse images, a proportion of which is created by young people in coercive and non- coercive relationships (sexting).

OBJECTIVES

This Delphi study with adolescents as "experts" who had taken and shared sexual images, was conducted to identify appropriate responses to sexting where images are shared without consent and identify indicators of distress and ways to facilitate disclosure when the sharing of images causes anxiety or is associated with further victimization.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

124 adolescents from the United Kingdom completed an online survey. All self-identified as taking and sharing sexual images of themselves. 45 provided full survey responses (73% female; mean age 16.24) and of these 23 completed the second round. Recruitment was through social media and local schools.

METHODS

An online two-round Delphi method was completed using a vignettes-based questionnaire. To assess consensus, a defined average percentage agreement (80% cut-off) was used. Qualitative content analysis identified relevant themes in responses to Round 1 which informed the Round 2 items.

RESULTS

In the first round 60 items were identified that endorsed views of problem identification, facilitation of disclosure, proportionate responding, and problem management. Overall, participants agreed that the clear majority of statements identified in Round 2 were important and thus achieved consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This study represents a novel and inclusive approach through the formation of an expert panel of young people. These views may inform appropriate victim-centered management of cases where images have been shared without permission.

How Do Communities Use a Participatory Public Health Approach to Build Resilience? The Los Angeles County Community Disaster Resilience Project

Community resilience is a key concept in the National Health Security Strategy that emphasizes development of multi-sector partnerships and equity through community engagement. Here, we describe the advancement of CR principles through community participatory methods in the Los Angeles County Community Disaster Resilience (LACCDR) initiative. LACCDR, an initiative led by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health with academic partners, randomized 16 community coalitions to implement either an Enhanced Standard Preparedness or Community Resilience approach over 24 months. Facilitated by a public health nurse or community educator, coalitions comprised government agencies, community-focused organizations and community members. We used thematic analysis of data from focus groups (n = 5) and interviews (n = 6 coalition members; n = 16 facilitators) to compare coalitions’ strategies for operationalizing community resilience levers of change (engagement, partnership, self-sufficiency, education). We find that strategies that included bidirectional learning helped coalitions understand and adopt resilience principles. Strategies that operationalized community resilience levers in mutually reinforcing ways (e.g., disseminating information while strengthening partnerships) also secured commitment to resilience principles. We review additional challenges and successes in achieving cross-sector collaboration and engaging at-risk groups in the resilience versus preparedness coalitions. The LACCDR example can inform strategies for uptake and implementation of community resilience and uptake of the resilience concept and methods.