Quality of Life of Colorectal Cancer Survivors: Mapping the Key Indicators by Expert Consensus and Measures for Their Assessment.

Quality of life (QoL) assessments are integral to cancer care, yet their effectiveness in providing essential information for supporting survivors varies. This study aimed to elucidate key indicators of QoL among colorectal cancer survivors from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and to evaluate existing QoL questionnaires in relation to these indicators. Two studies were conducted: a Delphi study to identify key QoL indicators and a scoping review of questionnaires suitable for colorectal cancer survivors. Fifty-four healthcare professionals participated in the Delphi study's first round, with 25 in the second. The study identified two primary QoL domains (physical and psychological) and 17 subdomains deemed most critical. Additionally, a review of 12 questionnaires revealed two instruments assessing the most important general domains. The findings underscored a misalignment between existing assessment tools and healthcare professionals' clinical priorities in working with colorectal cancer survivors. To enhance support for survivors' QoL, efforts are needed to develop instruments that better align with the demands of routine QoL assessment in clinical practice.

Developing the Open Psychedelic Evaluation Nexus consensus measures for assessment of supervised psilocybin services: An e-Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Voter initiatives in Oregon and Colorado authorize legal frameworks for supervised psilocybin services, but no measures monitor safety or outcomes. AIMS: To develop core measures of best practices. METHODS: A three-phase e-Delphi process recruited 36 experts with 5 or more years' experience facilitating psilocybin experiences in various contexts (e.g., ceremonial settings, indigenous practices, clinical trials), or other pertinent psilocybin expertise. Phase I, an on-line survey with qualitative, open-ended text responses, generated potential measures to assess processes, outcomes, and structure reflecting high quality psilocybin services. In Phase II, experts used seven-point Likert scales to rate the importance and feasibility of the Phase I measures. Measures were priority ranked. Qualitative interviews and analysis in Phase III refined top-rated measures. RESULTS: Experts (n = 36; 53% female; 71% white; 56% heterosexual) reported currently providing psilocybin services (64%) for a mean of 15.2 [SD 13.1] years, experience with indigenous psychedelic practices (67%), and/or conducting clinical trials (36%). Thematic analysis of Phase I responses yielded 55 candidate process measures (e.g., preparatory hours with client, total dose of psilocybin administered, documentation of touch/sexual boundaries), outcome measures (e.g., adverse events, well-being, anxiety/depression symptoms), and structure measures (e.g., facilitator training in trauma informed care, referral capacity for medical/psychiatric issues). In Phase II and III, experts prioritized a core set of 11 process, 11 outcome, and 17 structure measures that balanced importance and feasibility. CONCLUSION: Service providers and policy makers should consider standardizing core measures developed in this study to monitor the safety, quality, and outcomes of community-based psilocybin services.

Expert consensus recommendations for improving and standardising the assessment of patients with generalised myasthenia gravis.

BACKGROUND: Regular and consistent disease assessment could provide a clearer picture of burden in generalised myasthenia gravis (gMG) and improve patient care; however, the use of assessment tools in practice lacks standardisation. This modified Delphi approach was taken to review current evidence on assessment tool use in gMG and develop expert-derived consensus recommendations for good practice. METHODS: A European expert panel of 15 experienced gMG neurologists contributed to development of this consensus, four of whom formed a lead Sub-committee. The PICO (Population, Intervention, Control, Outcomes) framework was used to define six clinical questions on gMG assessment tools, a systematic literature review was conducted, and evidence-based statements were developed. According to a modified Delphi voting process, consensus was reached when ≥70% of the experts rated agreement with a statement as ≥8 on a scale of 1-10. RESULTS: Eighteen expert- and evidence-based consensus statements based on six themes were developed. Key recommendations include: consistent use of the Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living score (MG-ADL) across clinical settings, followed by a simple question (e.g., Patient Acceptable Symptom State [PASS]) or scale to determine patient satisfaction in clinical practice; use of a Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis [QMG] or quality of life [QoL] assessment when the MG-ADL indicates disease worsening; and consideration of symptom state to determine the timing and frequency of recommended assessments. Expert panel consensus was reached on all 18 statements after two voting rounds. CONCLUSIONS: This process provided evidence- and expert consensus-based recommendations for the use of objective and subjective assessment tools across gMG research and care to improve management and outcomes for patients.

Development of a supportive care framework for breast cancer survivor's unmet needs: A modified Delphi study.

AIM: To establish a supportive care framework for addressing unmet needs among breast cancer survivors, providing practical guidance for healthcare providers to assess and manage these needs, ultimately enhancing the health outcomes and quality of life of breast cancer survivors. DESIGN: We conducted a two-round Delphi survey to gather expert opinions regarding the unmet needs supportive care framework for breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Initial framework identification and inquiry questionnaire creation was achieved via literature search and expert group discussions, which included 15 experts from nursing practice, clinical medicine, nursing management and nursing education was conducted using a Delphi survey. To establish consensus, a two-round Delphi poll was done, using criteria based on the mean (≥4.0), coefficient of variation (CV < 0.25) and percentage for entire score (≥20%). RESULTS: Experts reached a consensus, leading to six care modules, and 28 care entries: Tumour Detection Support (three care entries), Management of Complications of Antitumor Therapy (seven care entries), Healthy Lifestyle Management (five care entries), Sexual and Fertility Support (four care entries), Psychosocial Support (four care entries) and Resource and Linkage Support (five care entries). CONCLUSION: To address breast cancer survivors' unmet needs, a supportive framework was developed to actively enhance their health outcomes. However, further refinement and feasibility testing using mobile devices or artificial intelligence are required. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: This pioneering framework prioritises addressing unmet needs and equips healthcare providers to assess and manage these needs effectively, facilitating the implementation of programs aimed at improving the well-being of breast cancer survivors. REPORTING METHOD: This study was guided by a modified guideline for the Conducting and Reporting of Delphi Studies (CREDES) (Palliative Medicine, 31(8), 684, 2017). PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The Delphi study methodology does not require registration.

Developing an Emergency Medicine assessment tool for medical interns within the South African context - A Modified Delphi Study.

Introduction: Emergency Medicine is a relatively new specialty in South Africa. Limited data is available regarding junior doctors' competence in managing emergencies, however previous surveys have identified limited teaching and supervision of junior doctors in Emergency Medicine. Currently there is no formal standardised assessment tool to assess an intern's Emergency Medicine competence. The aim of the study was to, through expert opinion and consensus, develop an Emergency Medicine assessment tool to identify a level of appropriate Emergency Medicine knowledge at the end of internship. Methods: The Modified Delphi Methodology was used to create an assessment tool via interaction with a panel of experts and took place over 4 rounds via an online survey platform. The initial round identified the high-priority topics within each intern domain. A questionnaire was created based on these topics and was presented to the panel for consensus during the following round/s. Rounds continued until each question met consensus of 75 %. Results: A total of 35 panellists consented to participate, representing 6 provinces. The majority were Emergency Medicine specialists. High-priority topics included acute respiratory distress, polytrauma, dehydration and shock in children, airway management, and the agitated patient. A 40-question, multiple choice questionnaire was created with all questions reaching consensus. Conclusion: This study highlighted the core high-priority Emergency Medicine topics that interns should be exposed to during their internship and created a questionnaire aimed at evaluating them. The study findings provide a novel contribution to identifying gaps in Emergency Medicine knowledge during intern training, allowing for potential interventions to be implemented to improve intern EM training. The addition of a clinical skills component and increasing the question database is suggested to further develop this tool. Larger iterative studies involving the HPCSA, and health education experts provide avenues for future research.

Cost modelling rehabilitation in the home for reconditioning in the Australian context.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient rehabilitation services are challenged by increasing demand. Where appropriate, a shift in service models towards more community-oriented approaches may improve efficiency. We aimed to estimate the hypothetical cost of delivering a consensus-based rehabilitation in the home (RITH) model as hospital substitution for patients requiring reconditioning following medical illness, surgery or treatment for cancer, compared to the cost of inpatient rehabilitation. METHODS: Data were drawn from the following sources: the results of a Delphi survey with health professionals working in the field of rehabilitation in Australia; publicly available data and reports; and the expert opinion of the project team. Delphi survey data were analysed descriptively. The costing model was developed using assumptions based on the sources described above and was restricted to the Australian National Subacute and Non-Acute Patient Classification (AN-SNAP) classes 4AR1 to 4AR4, which comprise around 73% of all reconditioning episodes in Australia. RITH cost modelling estimates were compared to the known cost of inpatient rehabilitation. Where weighted averages are provided, these were determined based on the modelled number of inpatient reconditioning episodes per annum that might be substitutable by RITH. RESULTS: The cost modelling estimated the weighted average cost of a RITH reconditioning episode (which mirrors an inpatient reconditioning episode in intensity and duration) for AN-SNAP classes 4AR1 to 4AR4, to be A$11,371, which is 28.1% less than the equivalent weighted average public inpatient cost (of A$15,820). This represents hypothetical savings of A$4,449 per RITH reconditioning substituted episode of care. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothetical cost of a model of RITH which would provide patients with as comprehensive a rehabilitation service as received in inpatient rehabilitation, has been determined. Findings suggest potential cost savings to the public hospital sector. Future research should focus on trials which compare actual clinical and cost outcomes of RITH for patients in the reconditioning impairment category, to inpatient rehabilitation.

Eligibility Criteria for Active Ulcerative Pyoderma Gangrenosum in Clinical Trials: A Delphi Consensus on Behalf of the UPGRADE (Understanding Pyoderma Gangrenosum: Review and Assessment of Disease Effects) Group.

At present, there are no standardized guidelines for determining patient eligibility for pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) clinical trials. Thus, we aim to determine which clinical features, histopathological features, or laboratory features should be included in active ulcerative PG clinical trial eligibility criteria for treatment-naïve patients and patients already treated with immunomodulating medications (treatment-exposed patients). This study employed 4 rounds of the Delphi technique. Electronic surveys were administered to 21 international board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeon PG experts (June 2022-December 2022). Our results demonstrated that for a patient to be eligible for a PG trial, they must meet the following criteria: (i) presence of ulcer(s) with erythematous/violaceous undermining wound borders, (ii) presence of a painful or tender ulcer, (iii) history/presence of rapidly progressing disease, (iv) exclusion of infection and other causes of cutaneous ulceration, (v) biopsy for H&E staining, and (vi) a presence/history of pathergy. These criteria vary in importance for treatment-naïve versus treatment-exposed patients. Given the international cohort, we were unable to facilitate live discussions between rounds. This Delphi consensus study provides a set of specific, standardized eligibility criteria for PG clinical trials, thus addressing one of the main issues hampering progress toward Food and Drug Administration approval of medications for PG.

Consensus on the definition and assessment of external validity of randomized controlled trials: A Delphi study.

External validity is an important parameter that needs to be considered for decision making in health research, but no widely accepted measurement tool for the assessment of external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exists. One of the most limiting factors for creating such a tool is probably the substantial heterogeneity and lack of consensus in this field. The objective of this study was to reach consensus on a definition of external validity and on criteria to assess the external validity of RCTs included in systematic reviews. A three-round online Delphi study was conducted. The development of the Delphi survey was based on findings from a previous systematic review. Potential panelists were identified through a comprehensive web search. Consensus was reached when at least 67% of the panelists agreed to a proposal. Eighty-four panelists from different countries and various disciplines participated in at least one round of this study. Consensus was reached on the definition of external validity ("External validity is the extent to which results of trials provide an acceptable basis for generalization to other circumstances such as variations in populations, settings, interventions, outcomes, or other relevant contextual factors"), and on 14 criteria to assess the external validity of RCTs in systematic reviews. The results of this Delphi study provide a consensus-based reference standard for future tool development. Future research should focus on adapting, pilot testing, and validating these criteria to develop measurement tools for the assessment of external validity.

Diversity competence training for health professionals in Europe: a modified delphi study investigating relevant content for short or online courses.

BACKGROUND: Diversity is a reality in our societies, requiring health professionals to adapt to the unique needs of all patients, including migrants and ethnic minorities. In order to enable health professionals to meet related challenges and reduce health disparities, long and demanding training courses have been developed. But due to busy schedules of professionals and often scarce resources, a need for shorter training courses exists. This study aims to investigate which topics and methods should be prioritised in designing basic diversity training courses that provide health professionals the opportunity to foster this competence. METHODS: The study provided an expert panel of 31 academic and clinical migrant health experts with the content and methods of an existing diversity training course. The panel was asked to prioritise training topics and teaching methods in a two-stage process, using an adapted Delphi method. In the first stage, experts rated 96 predefined items, commented on those items, provided answers to eight open-ended questions and suggested additional content for a short course. In the second stage, they commented on the ratings from Round 1, and rated new suggested content. Consensus for training topics was set to 80% and for teaching methods 70%. RESULTS: The entire panel deemed 'health effects of migration (pre-, during- and post-migration risk factors)' to be important or very important to include in a short/online, basic diversity training (100% consensus). Other high-scoring items and therefore topics to be included in trainings were 'social determinants of health' (97%) and 'discrimination within the healthcare sector' (also 97%). A general trend was to focus on reflective practice since almost all items regarding reflection reached consensus. 'Reflection on own stereotypes and prejudices' (97%) was the highest-rated reflection item. 'Opportunities and best practices in working with interpreters' was the highest-scoring skills item, both on consensus (96%) and mean value (5.77). CONCLUSIONS: Experts' prioritizations of teaching content and methods for diversity training can help the design of short (online) trainings for health professionals and reduce unnecessary course content, thereby fostering professional development and enabling diversity competence trainings to be implemented also when time and/or financial resources are limited.

An overview of facilitators and barriers in the development of eHealth interventions for people of low socioeconomic position: A Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: eHealth interventions can improve the health outcomes of people with a low socioeconomic position (SEP) by promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours. However, developing and implementing these interventions among the target group can be challenging for professionals. To facilitate the uptake of effective interventions, this study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced by professionals in the development, reach, adherence, implementation and evaluation phases of eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP. METHOD: We used a Delphi method, consisting of two online questionnaires, to determine the consensus on barriers and facilitators anticipated or experienced during eHealth intervention phases and their importance. Participants provided open-ended responses in the first round and rated statements in the second round. The interquartile range was used to calculate consensus, and the (totally) agree ratings were used to assess importance. RESULTS: Twenty-seven professionals participated in the first round, and 19 (70.4%) completed the second round. We found a consensus for 34.8% of the 46 items related to highly important rated barriers, such as the lack of involvement of low-SEP people in the development phase, lack of knowledge among professionals about reaching the target group, and lack of knowledge among lower-SEP groups about using eHealth interventions. Additionally, we identified a consensus for 80% of the 60 items related to highly important rated facilitators, such as rewarding people with a low SEP for their involvement in the development phase and connecting eHealth interventions to the everyday lives of lower-SEP groups to enhance reach. CONCLUSION: Our study provides valuable insights into the barriers and facilitators of developing eHealth interventions for people with a low SEP by examining current practices and offering recommendations for future improvements. Strengthening facilitators can help overcome these barriers. To achieve this, we recommend defining the roles of professionals and lower-SEP groups in each phase of eHealth intervention and disseminating this study's findings to professionals to optimize the impact of eHealth interventions for this group.

Active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide research: a Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The importance and value of involvement of people with lived experience of suicide has been recognized in suicide research and prevention. Nonetheless, clear guidance on research collaboration and co-production is lacking. This study aimed to address this gap by developing a set of guidelines on active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide studies., i.e., conducting research with or by people with lived experience, rather than to, about or for them. METHODS: The Delphi method was used to determine statements on best practice for the active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide research. Statements were compiled through a systematic search of the scientific and grey literature, and reviewing qualitative data from a recent related study conducted by the authors. Two expert panels: people with lived experience of suicide (n = 44) and suicide researchers (n = 29) rated statements over three rounds of an online survey. Statements endorsed by at least 80% of panellists of each panel were included in the guidelines. RESULTS: Panellists endorsed 96 out of 126 statements in 17 sections covering the full research cycle from deciding on the research question and securing funding, to conducting research and disseminating and implementing outcomes. Overall, there was a substantial level of agreement between the two panels regarding support from research institutions, collaboration and co-production, communication and shared decision making, conducting research, self-care, acknowledgment, and dissemination and implementation. However, panels also disagreed on specific statements regarding representativeness and diversity, managing expectations, time and budgeting, training, and self-disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified consensus recommendations on active involvement of people with lived experience of suicide in suicide research, including co-production. Support from research institutions and funders, and training on co-production for researchers and people with lived experience, are needed for successful implementation and uptake of the guidelines.

Identifying the Enablers and Barriers to Advance Nurse Prescribing of Medication in Spain According to Experts' Views: A Delphi Study.

Nurses play an important role in pharmaceutical care worldwide in detecting clinical changes, communicating and discussing pharmacotherapy with patients, their families, and other healthcare professionals, proposing and implementing drug-related interventions, and ensuring the monitoring of patients and their medication regimens, among others. However, there is no global consensus across countries regarding the prescribing of medication by nurses. In Spain, for example, this topic is currently in transition since the approval of the Royal Decree 1302/2018 of October 22nd, which regulates the indication, use, and authorization for dispensing human-use medication by nurses. Our study aims to identify the enablers and barriers to advancing the nurse prescribing of medication in Spain through the views of experts in the field and according to the latest Royal Decree approved and the steps taken by the different Spanish autonomous communities. A modified qualitative Delphi study with three iterations was performed online through the perspectives of experts from the field of healthcare education, research, practice, management, and policy. Data extracted from the literature review were used to formulate the open-ended questions utilized in the three rounds. The experts involved (n = 15) belonged to different Spanish regions where the Royal Decree is being implemented with different speeds, and had distinct backgrounds and experiences. Our results highlight the importance of prospectively developing additional protocols based on chronic diseases as well as scaling up towards independent nursing prescription, the inclusion of a joint multidisciplinary pharmaceutical care model, the controversial role played by national nursing councils and boards, the variability in the speed of implementation among the autonomous communities, and the lack of nursing training in the field of medication prescription.

Development of a novel ergonomic index assessment in the workplace based on physical, cognitive, and environmental components.

BACKGROUND: Currently, proper assessment of the existing ergonomic hazards, focusing on improving the health of individuals, is of great importance. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a new model for ergonomic index assessment in the workplace, focusing on physical, cognitive, and environmental components. METHODS: To determine the parameters to be measured for each group of occupations, the most critical indicators in each ergonomic dimension were identified using a review of scientific texts and obtaining expert opinions. The opinions of 30 experts were studied in three stages Delphi study. Cronbach's alpha was used to calculate model reliability in SPSS version 25. An analytical hierarchy process was used to determine the weight values of each component and parameter. The weights were calculated in Expert Choice version 11. RESULTS: The mean CVI and CVR values were 0.92 and 0.80, respectively. Cronbach's alpha values for each of the physical, environmental, and cognitive components and the entire model were 0.91, 0.87, 0.85, and 0.89, respectively. Physical components and parameters of physical condition during work, mental workload, lighting, and thermal stress in the workplace were among the most important parameters in the three groups of office, operational, and services jobs. CONCLUSION: The model can be a practical step toward properly evaluating the ergonomic components and planning to implement control measures to reduce physical, cognitive, and environmental risk factors. Considering the study of different variables in occupational ergonomic risk assessment, this model can be a helpful tool in ergonomic management systems used in different occupational environments.

A Delphi consensus among experts on assessment and treatment of disruptive mood dysregulation disorder.

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore consensus among clinicians and researchers on how to assess and treat Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD). Methods: The Delphi method was used to organize data collected from an initial sample of 23 child psychiatrists and psychologists. Three rounds of closed/open questions were needed to achieve the objective. Results: Fifteen experts in the field completed the whole study. Finally, 122 proposals were validated and 5 were rejected. Globally, consensus was more easily reached on items regarding assessment than on those regarding treatment. Specifically, experts agreed that intensity, frequency, and impact of DMDD symptoms needed to be measured across settings, including with parents, siblings, peers, and teachers. While a low level of consensus emerged regarding optimal pharmacological treatment, the use of psychoeducation, behavior-focused therapies (e.g., dialectical behavior therapy, chain analysis, exposure, relaxation), and systemic approaches (parent management training, family therapy, parent-child interaction therapy) met with a high degree of consensus. Conclusion: This study presents recommendations that reached a certain degree of consensus among researchers and clinicians regarding the assessment and treatment of youths with DMDD. These findings may be useful to clinicians working with this population and to researchers since they also highlight non-consensual areas that need to be further investigated.

Advancing multi-level health communication research: A Delphi study on barriers and opportunities.

Adopting a multi-level perspective that considers the many interrelated contexts influencing health could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. However, despite increasing interest in the use of multi-level approaches, multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions are infrequently utilized. We therefore sought to conduct a modified Delphi study to better understand how researchers conceptualize MLHC interventions and identify opportunities for advancing MLHC work. Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about the characteristics, benefits, pitfalls, best practices, barriers, and facilitators of MLHC interventions; the role of technology in facilitating MLHC interventions; and ways to advance MLHC intervention research (46 experts completed the first survey, 44 completed both surveys). Survey data were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach. Panelists reached consensus on two components of the proposed definition of MLHC interventions and also put forward a set of best practices for these interventions. Panelists felt that most health intervention research could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offered certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized the potential for technology to exacerbate disparities. Finally, panelists prioritized a set of methodological advances and practical supports that would be needed to facilitate future MLHC intervention research. The results of this study point to several future directions for the field, including advancing how interactions between levels are assessed, increasing the empirical evidence base demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identifying best practices for the use of technology. The findings also suggest that researchers may need additional support to overcome the perceived practical challenges of conducting MLHC interventions.

BACKGROUND: Considering the factors that affect health across multiple levels (e.g., individual, family, community, and policy) could make health communication interventions more effective and equitable. The goal of this study was to better understand how researchers characterize multi-level health communication (MLHC) interventions and to identify opportunities for advancing work in this area. METHODS: Communication and health behavior experts were invited to complete two rounds of surveys about MLHC interventions. RESULTS: Panelists reported that most health communication interventions could benefit from a multi-level approach, and generally agreed that MLHC approaches offer certain advantages over single-level approaches. However, they also expressed concern related to the time, cost, and complexity of MLHC interventions. Although panelists felt that technology could potentially support MLHC interventions, they also recognized that the use of technology could have unintended consequences. Using input from the panel of experts recruited for the study, we propose a working definition of MLHC interventions and a set of best practices for conducting these types of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the need to improve methods, conduct additional research demonstrating the advantages of MLHC interventions, and identify how technology can best be used to support these interventions.

Assessment and care of individuals at risk of suicide in Emergency Department: The SecUrgence protocol.

Almost half (48,5%) of all individuals who die by suicide visited the Emergency Department (ED) in the year preceding their death by suicide and for almost a third (29,5%) of these individuals, the ED visit occurred within the month preceding their death by suicide. The ED is a key location for suicide prevention. The aim of this study was to develop and reach a consensus on the SecUrgence Protocol, a clinical protocol that intends to assess and provide care for individuals at risk of suicide that present themselves to the ED. This project was conducted in 3 stages: 1) Review of the literature, 2) Development of the list of the protocol statements by a first panel of experts, and 3) Validation, using the Delphi consensus method, on the final statements to include in the SecUrgence Protocol by a second panel of experts. Two rounds of the Delphi questionnaire were conducted until a final consensus of over 75% was reached. The SecUrgence Protocol is a first scientific step towards improving suicide prevention in the ED in Quebec as it was validated by a rigorous research process that included a consensus by all key stakeholders.

Development of a physical literacy assessment model for adults in China: a modified Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: Physical literacy (PL) is emerging as a promising strategy to address the crisis of physical inactivity, promote active lifestyles, improve physical fitness and reduce the risk of chronic diseases throughout life. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a PL assessment model for adults in China. STUDY DESIGN: This is a Delphi study. METHODS: The following three-step design process was conducted: (1) drafting a preliminary framework for PL assessment through a literature review and telephone interview with experts; (2) a two-round Delphi survey with the experts was used to select items for inclusion in the PL assessment model; (3) the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to quantify the weight of each item included in the final PL assessment model. RESULTS: A total of 13 experts completed a two-round Delphi survey. After round 1, three domains, 11 sub-domains and 21 elements were identified. Two elements were added after the first-round Delphi survey. In round 2, strong consensus was obtained and a final PL assessment model, including three domains, 11 sub-domains and 23 elements, was established. Specific weights of physical activity (PA) cognition, PA-related behaviour and physical competence were 0.330, 0.347 and 0.323, respectively. In addition, the weights of sub-domains and elements were also calculated. CONCLUSIONS: This study established a PL assessment model and identified specific weights for the individual domains. This study represents the first step in developing a PL assessment tool for adults in China. Further research should focus on developing the PL assessment tool and verifying its validity and reliability.

A Delphi study to guide the development of a clinical indicator tool for palliative care in South Africa.

BACKGROUND:  The South African National Policy Framework and Strategy on Palliative Care (NPFSPC) recommends that when integrating palliative care (PC) into the health system, a PC indicators tool should be used to guide clinicians to recognise a patient who should receive PC. The policy document recommends 'a simple screening tool developed for use in South Africa that would assist healthcare professionals (HCPs) to recognise patients who may have unmet palliative care needs'. AIM:  This research study sought to develop South African consensus on indicators for PC to assist clinicians to recognise a patient in need of PC. SETTING:  The South African healthcare setting. METHODS:  A Delphi study was considered suitable as a methodology to develop consensus. The methodology was based on the Conducting and REporting of DElphi studies (CREDES) guidance on Delphi studies to ensure rigour and transparency in conducting and reporting. Six different Delphi rounds were used to develop consensus. Each round allowed participants to anonymously rate statements with predefined rating scales. RESULTS:  Cognisant of the disparities in healthcare provision and access to equitable healthcare in South Africa, the expert advisory group recommended, especially for South Africa, that 'this tool is for deteriorating patients with an advanced life-limiting illness where all available and appropriate management for underlying illnesses and reversible complications has been offered'. The expert advisory group felt that disease-specific indicators should be described before the general indicators in the South African indicators tool, so all users of the tool orientate themselves to the disease categories first. This study included three new domains to address the South African context: trauma, infectious diseases and haematological diseases. General indicators for PC aligned with the original Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) tool. CONCLUSION:  The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool for South Africa (SPICTTM-SA) is a simple screening tool for South Africa that may assist HCPs to recognise patients who may have unmet PC needs.

Adopting wearables to customize health insurance contributions: a ranking-type Delphi.

BACKGROUND: Wearables, as small portable computer systems worn on the body, can track user fitness and health data, which can be used to customize health insurance contributions individually. In particular, insured individuals with a healthy lifestyle can receive a reduction of their contributions to be paid. However, this potential is hardly used in practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify which barrier factors impede the usage of wearables for assessing individual risk scores for health insurances, despite its technological feasibility, and to rank these barriers according to their relevance. METHODS: To reach these goals, we conduct a ranking-type Delphi study with the following three stages. First, we collected possible barrier factors from a panel of 16 experts and consolidated them to a list of 11 barrier categories. Second, the panel was asked to rank them regarding their relevance. Third, to enhance the panel consensus, the ranking was revealed to the experts, who were then asked to re-rank the barriers. RESULTS: The results suggest that regulation is the most important barrier. Other relevant barriers are false or inaccurate measurements and application errors caused by the users. Additionally, insurers could lack the required technological competence to use the wearable data appropriately. CONCLUSION: A wider use of wearables and health apps could be achieved through regulatory modifications, especially regarding privacy issues. Even after assuring stricter regulations, users' privacy concerns could partly remain, if the data exchange between wearables manufacturers, health app providers, and health insurers does not become more transparent.

Voice-Controlled Intelligent Personal Assistants in Health Care: International Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants (VIPAs), such as Amazon Echo and Google Home, involve artificial intelligence-powered algorithms designed to simulate humans. Their hands-free interface and growing capabilities have a wide range of applications in health care, covering off-clinic education, health monitoring, and communication. However, conflicting factors, such as patient safety and privacy concerns, make it difficult to foresee the further development of VIPAs in health care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a plausible scenario for the further development of VIPAs in health care to support decision making regarding the procurement of VIPAs in health care organizations. METHODS: We conducted a two-stage Delphi study with an internationally recruited panel consisting of voice assistant experts, medical professionals, and representatives of academia, governmental health authorities, and nonprofit health associations having expertise with voice technology. Twenty projections were formulated and evaluated by the panelists. Descriptive statistics were used to derive the desired scenario. RESULTS: The panelists expect VIPAs to be able to provide solid medical advice based on patients' personal health information and to have human-like conversations. However, in the short term, voice assistants might neither provide frustration-free user experience nor outperform or replace humans in health care. With a high level of consensus, the experts agreed with the potential of VIPAs to support elderly people and be widely used as anamnesis, informational, self-therapy, and communication tools by patients and health care professionals. Although users' and governments' privacy concerns are not expected to decrease in the near future, the panelists believe that strict regulations capable of preventing VIPAs from providing medical help services will not be imposed. CONCLUSIONS: According to the surveyed experts, VIPAs will show notable technological development and gain more user trust in the near future, resulting in widespread application in health care. However, voice assistants are expected to solely support health care professionals in their daily operations and will not be able to outperform or replace medical staff.