Delphi Panel Research Articles

Measuring Research Capacity: Development of the PACER Tool.

Evaluating research activity in research departments and education programs is conventionally accomplished through measurement of research funding or bibliometrics. This limited perspective of research activity restricts a more comprehensive evaluation of a program's actual research capacity, ultimately hindering efforts to enhance and expand it. The objective of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the existing literature pertaining to the measurement of research productivity in research institutions. Using these findings, the study aimed to create a standardized research measurement tool, the Productivity And Capacity Evaluation in Research (PACER) Tool. The evidence review identified 726 relevant articles in a literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL, and Google Scholar with the keywords "research capacity" and "research productivity." Thirty-nine English-language studies applicable to research measurement were assessed in full and 20 were included in the data extraction. Capacity/productivity metrics were identified, and the relevance of each metric was data-charted according to 3 criteria: the metric was objective, organizational in scale, and applicable to varied research domains. This produced 42 research capacity/productivity metrics that fell into 7 relevant categories: bibliometrics, impact, ongoing research, collaboration activities, funding, personnel, and education/academics. With the expertise of a Delphi panel of researchers, research leaders, and organizational leadership, 31 of these 42 metrics were included in the final PACER Tool. This multifaceted tool enables research departments to benchmark research capacity and research productivity against other programs, monitor capacity development over time, and provide valuable strategic insights for decisions such as resource allocation.

The interaction of blockchain technology, audit process, and the International Financial Reporting Standards

Purpose This study aims to provide a framework for the interaction of blockchain technology, the audit process and International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). Design/methodology/approach This study was conducted in three phases. In the first phase, a meta-synthesis method was used until 2020. Out of 87 papers, a total number of 15 were selected, and 72 were excluded after an initial screening. In the second phase, 11 interviews were held with experts with sufficient experience and expertise in blockchain technology, accounting and auditing. These interviews were held between 2020 and 2021. The sampling was purposive (targeted) in type, along with snowball sampling. In the third phase, a combination of questionnaire-based method and the fuzzy Delphi method was used. The research population for this phase consisted of accounting professors, members of the Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants and accounting and technology professionals. Following the selection of the Delphi panel, 35 questionnaires were collected between 2021 and 2022 for analysis. Findings The results showed that in line with the interaction of blockchain technology, audit process and IFRS, 52 indicators were confirmed in eight components. Moreover, “Verifiability,” “Timeliness” and “Predictive value” were the most influential factors, respectively, according to the conceptual model. In addition, higher average scores of experts’ views were related to “Transparency audit reports” and “Increasing the quality of the auditor’s judgment”, respectively. Originality/value Blockchain is a complex subject, and there has been very little published research on the intersection of IFRS and blockchain technology. It is crucial for the audit profession and technology professionals to focus on the interaction of blockchain technology with the qualitative characteristics of information. This is an area that has not been thoroughly researched yet. The interaction of blockchain technology, improvements in the audit process and adherence to IFRS is a significant development in accounting and auditing.

Training physicians in motivational communication: An integrated knowledge transfer study protocol.

While behavior change counseling (BCC) targeting health risk behaviors has shown efficacy for improving patient health outcomes, barriers to knowledge translation have resulted in poor uptake among health care providers (HCPs). This article outlines the development of a new BCC training framework for HCPs, from inception to readiness for efficacy testing. It provides an example of integrated knowledge translation (iKT) used in alignment with the obesity-related behavioral intervention trials model. (a) A modified Delphi process identified essential BCC skills for HCPs; (b) a survey assessed HCP attitudes and training needs; (c) an online competency assessment tool was developed using iKT mixed methods; (d) a training program was developed and refined using a logic model; and (e) the program was optimized using iterative rounds of participant feedback. A future proof-of-concept trial (f) will determine the program's readiness for full efficacy testing. A Delphi panel (n = 46) identified 11 core BCC competencies for HCPs, defining "motivational communication." The HCP survey (n = 80) showed willingness to devote 4 hr to introductory training in BCC. The Motivational Communication Competency Assessment Test (MC-CAT: an online, interactive evaluation tool) and a motivational communication training program (MOTIVATOR: accredited for continuing education by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada) were collaboratively developed with knowledge users. The optimization process (n = 11) provided key feedback, with minor changes being made to the program. In developing a new BCC framework, obstacles to BCC implementation were addressed through an iterative iKT process. This should improve eventual intervention uptake. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Consensus Statement: Postoperative Management after Balloon Dilation of the Eustachian Tube.

Balloon dilation of Eustachian tube (BDET) has been widely used as a minimally invasive treatment for obstructive Eustachian tube dysfunction (ETD). We used a Delphi consensus methodology to explore recommendations for clinical management of BDET in obstructive ETD. A Delphi panel of 26 expert physicians of otology participated in two rounds of anonymous, iterative questionnaires. Consensus is defined as ≥ 70% of panelists agree with recommendation and disagreement as < 70% agree. The responses from the Delphi study were analyzed using both the content validity ratio and Kendall's coefficient of concordance. The panel finally evaluated 26 topics, agreed 9 and did not reach consensus on 17 topics after 2 rounds. Although no consensus was reached on the postoperative follow-up period, a period of 12 months was most adopted. The Valsalva maneuver and questionnaire responses showed the highest agreement as postoperative assessment tools after BDET. Consensus was reached on some of the recommendations for the management of BEDT in obstructive ETD. The resultant agreement will provide directions for future research to describe standard postoperative management of BDET.

Medications for community pharmacists to dose adjust or avoid to enhance prescribing safety in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease: a scoping review and modified Delphi

BackgroundCommunity pharmacists commonly see individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and are in an ideal position to mitigate harm from inappropriate prescribing. We sought to develop a relevant medication list for community pharmacists to dose adjust or avoid in individuals with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) below 30 mL/min informed through a scoping review and modified Delphi panel of nephrology, geriatric and primary care pharmacists.MethodsA scoping review was undertaken to identify higher risk medications common to community pharmacy practice, which require a dose adaptation in individuals with advanced CKD. A 3-round modified Delphi was conducted, informed by the medications identified in our scoping review, to establish consensus on which medications community pharmacists should adjust or avoid in individuals with stage 4 and 5 CKD (non-dialysis).ResultsNinety-two articles and 88 medications were identified from our scoping review. Of which, 64 were deemed relevant to community pharmacy practice and presented for consideration to 27 panel experts. The panel consisted of Canadian pharmacists practicing in nephrology (66.7%), geriatrics (18.5%) and primary care (14.8%). All participants completed rounds 1 and 2 and 96% completed round 3. At the end of round 3, the top 40 medications to adjust or avoid were identified. All round 3 participants selected metformin, gabapentin, pregabalin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nitrofurantoin, ciprofloxacin and rivaroxaban as the top ranked medications.ConclusionMedications eliminated by the kidneys may accumulate and cause harm in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease. This study provides an expert consensus of the top 40 medications that community pharmacists should collaboratively adjust or avoid to enhance medication safety and prescribing for individuals with an eGFR below 30 mL/min.

The cardiovascular polypill strategy (acetyl salicylic acid, atorvastatin, ramipril) as baseline treatment after a cardiovascular event supported by compelling evidence: a global expert consensus

Abstract Background The SECURE trial demonstrated that the CV-polypill strategy (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]+atorvastatin+ramipril) reduces CV mortality by 33% in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) compared to standard care over 3 years (median). The 2023 ACS ESC Guidelines recommend the polypill strategy to improve outcomes and treatment adherence. The CV-polypill inclusion in the 2023 World Health Organization's essential medicines list signifies its effective and affordable response to a global secondary prevention healthcare requirement. Purpose To reach consensus among medical experts from various countries regarding key implementation aspects of the CV-polypill strategy (ASA+atorvastatin+ramipril) as baseline preventive treatment after a CV event (CVe) in routine clinical practice. Methods A two-round modified Delphi method was employed. A questionnaire consisting of 30 evidence-based statements was developed and validated with input from 8 distinguished cardiologists. The Delphi panel, 50 physicians from 19 countries across Europe, Latin America, and Asia, used a three-point Likert scale to establish their agreement and perceived importance of the statements. Consensus was reached when ≥80% agreed or deemed statements 'very important' or 'important. Statements without consensus in the first round underwent refinement based on evidence and panellists’ feedback in the second round. Persistent disagreements were resolved in a face-to-face meeting with experts. Descriptive statistics were applied. Results 38/50 panellists participated in round 1, and 37/50 in round 2. 31/38 were cardiologists. 28/38 routinely prescribed the CV-polypill strategy. 97.4% of panellists believed that the 24% relative risk reduction in major CVe over 3 years (median), attained with the CV-polypill strategy (ASA+atorvastatin+ramipril) compared to standard care could replicate in clinical practice while maintaining equal safety (97.4%). Unanimous consensus (100%) supported initiating the CV-polypill strategy as baseline preventive treatment upon hospital discharge or at first follow-up. Its efficacy and safety were also acknowledged for stroke (94.7%), peripheral artery disease (92.1%), and both genders (84.2%). 89.5% supported CV-polypill affordability for preventing CHD events and strokes. Algorithms for initiation (97.3%) and transition (97.4%) to the CV-polypill strategy from cardioprotective drugs, considering patient preferences (97.5%), were confirmed. A unanimous consensus (100%) affirmed the positive impact of the simplified CV-polypill treatment on patient satisfaction, with 94.7% recognizing its convenience (Figure 1). Conclusions Skilled medical experts across continents reached consensus on critical implementation aspects and strongly endorse the early use of the CV-polypill strategy (ASA+atorvastatin+ramipril). This adoption aims to reduce CVD recurrence, improve prognosis, and potentially enhance affordability in CVD treatment after a CVe.Consensus on CV polypill implementation

Insights from an international clinic survey on CIED patient management practices and perceptions

Abstract Background Remote monitoring (RM) is recommended as standard of care to manage patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, implementation within overall follow-up (FU) practice is challenging with many organizational aspects to consider. While the 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS consensus on management of remote device clinics provided guidance, data on current patient management practice is lacking to understand existing gaps. Purpose This survey of device clinic staff characterized the state and perceptions of CIED patient management. Methods A Delphi panel of US and EU clinical experts guided the research objectives, structure, and content of the survey. Once consensus was reached, the online survey (Qualtrics) was deployed in partnership with HRS. An available case analysis was performed to handle missing data. Results A total of 471 responses were received between September 2023-January 2024 (66% US, 19% Europe, 15% other). Overall, performing a combination of in-office visits and RM was the most frequent FU practice for all devices. Remote-only management was only commonly reported for insertable cardiac monitors (ICM). Adoption of RM was lower in EU compared to US for therapeutic devices, especially pacemakers for which in-person only FU remained high (Figure 1). Frequency of routine visits and transmissions is reported in Figure 2. While the majority of respondents (48-67%, depending on device type) expressed that less than 20% routine visits are actionable, adopting a practice of FU visits scheduled every 2 years as suggested in the 2023 consensus was rarely reported for therapeutic devices. However, alert-based RM seems to emerge for ICM without routine FU. In the US, frequency of scheduled transmissions appeared aligned with reimbursement rules (monthly for ICMs; quarterly for therapeutic devices), whereas there was more variability in EU where RM often lacks clear funding. Divided opinion was observed regarding staff sufficiency as 43% found staffing levels somewhat/very sufficient, while 42% rated it as somewhat/very insufficient. Managing disconnected patients, initial transmission review, and patient phone calls were identified as most burdensome tasks and were the ones for which there was most willingness to outsource. Although 60% respondents rated their practice as somewhat/very efficient, the majority (45%) did not report monitoring performance. The minority (29%) assessing patient management performance primarily tracked workload volume rather than quality-related metrics. Conclusion This large international survey characterized contemporary CIED patient management practices. While the 2023 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS consensus highlighted the potential for alert-based RM, reducing in-person visits, and third-party resources to streamline patient FU, these practices have yet to be fully implemented. As such, there is opportunity to standardize and optimize workflows to drive efficiency and quality of care.Follow-up paradigm by regionFrequency of routine follow-up

The Attitude of Nursing Staff Towards Oral Healthcare for Care-Dependent Older Adults (ANOCO) Questionnaire: Development and Validation.

This study aims to report on the development and validation of the Attitude of Nursing staff towards Oral healthcare for Care-dependent Older adults (ANOCO) questionnaire. The development of the ANOCO questionnaire was performed in three stages between 2008 and 2019. In a first stage, domains related to oral healthcare attitudes were identified. Next, relevant statements per domain were formulated by a Delphi panel in two rounds, resulting in a questionnaire with 32 statements. In a final phase, this questionnaire was subjected to psychometric analysis, including an evaluation of the construct validity, an internal consistency analysis (Cronbachs alpha) and a principal component analysis. The questionnaire could significantly distinguish between known groups (dentists, nurses' aides, nursing students and nurses). Regarding internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha was 0.863 in the first sample (n = 361) and 0.843 in the second sample (n = 1051). Based on principal component analysis, 22 statements were retained. Four components with an eigenvalue of more than 1 explained 45% of the total variance. The ANOCO-22 questionnaire consists of 22 statements and is a valid tool to assess the changes or differences in the attitude of nursing staff towards oral healthcare for care-dependent older adults.

Priorities and challenges in social and healthcare policies for older people living in the Mediterranean basin: A Delphi panel study

BackgroundRecently, the countries in the Mediterranean basin (which share cultural ties) have been showing a common trend of declining social support for the elderly, with deficiencies in social care models for this demographic. Thus, this Delphi panel study analyzed the gaps in social and integrated care among the participating countries in a European research project.MethodsThis three-round Delphi panel study focused on the European countries of Greece and Spain and the non-European countries of Egypt, Lebanon, and Tunisia. In this project, experts were identified according to their level of expertise in the subject matter, their gender, and their membership in different social groups. Subsequently, they were asked to identify the current situation of social care, set future goals, and locate the gaps regarding the social and healthcare models for older people in the participating countries. The median score (Mdn) and interquartile range (IQR) were calculated to assess the degree of consensus on the different priorities.ResultsAmong the participating countries, there was a lack of state agreements to maintain social care models, a lack of coordination between public and private institutions to provide social care services, territorial inequalities in terms of access and coverage of rights, and job insecurity for professionals. The desired situation was to integrate social and healthcare services with a person-centered social care model, thus promoting autonomy and empowering users and families in participation and decision-making.ConclusionsThis Delphi study reveals significant disparities in social and healthcare policies for older adults across Mediterranean countries, highlighting shared challenges and specific national needs. European nations like Greece and Spain face fragmented systems, while non-European countries such as Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia lack specialized geriatric services and social security. All countries urgently need better professional training, social and economic empowerment of older adults, and integrated national strategies. These findings offer key insights for policymakers to develop equitable, sustainable solutions for aging populations.

Chinese Anesthesiology Milestones in Resident Evaluation: Reliability, Validity, and Correlation with Objective Examination Scores: a Cross-sectional Study.

Evaluating competency acquisition during residency training is crucial. The Anesthesiology Milestones have been implemented in the United States. The China Consortium of Elite Teaching Hospitals for Residency Education has also developed the Chinese Resident Core Competency Milestone Evaluation System. Despite this, Milestones tailored for anesthesiology have yet to be implemented in China. To address this gap, we have developed Chinese Anesthesiology Milestones. This study aims to assess the reliability and validity of the Chinese Anesthesiology Milestones and their correlation with objective examinations. In this single-center cross-sectional study, we included anesthesia residents enrolled in the standardized residency training program at our hospital during the academic year 2021 to 2022. The Chinese Anesthesiology Milestones were developed based on the American version of Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0 and the Chinese Resident Core Competency Milestone Evaluation System using the Delphi method. The Delphi panel comprised a diverse group, including education administrators, faculty from teaching hospitals, and anesthesia residents. Five attending anesthesiologists independently assessed the levels achieved by each anesthesia resident based on the Chinese Anesthesiology Milestones. Subsequently, they collaboratively discussed the ratings for each resident until a consensus was reached. The interrater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity were assessed using Kendall's coefficient, Cronbach's α coefficient/ composite reliability, and average variance extracted, respectively. Higher values indicated better reliability or validity. The correlation between Milestone ratings and objective examination scores, including written examinations and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations, were analyzed using Pearson correlation. The Chinese Anesthesiology Milestones encompassed 6 competencies, including professionalism, medical knowledge and technical skills, patient care, interpersonal and communication skills, teaching ability, and life-long learning. Milestone evaluation data were available and analyzed from 66 residents. The Kendall's coefficient of concordance among raters ranged from 0.799 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.793-0.918) to 0.942 (95% CI, 0.934-0.982). The average variance extracted, composite reliability, and Cronbach's α coefficient ranged from 0.782 to 0.920, 0.935 to 0.980, and 0.916 to 0.978, respectively. Correlations between objective examination scores and related Milestone subcompetencies were as follows: written examinations: r = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.22-0.71), technical skills stations: r = 0.51 (95% CI, 0.21-0.71), the oral test station: r = 0.66 (95% CI, 0.45-0.79), and the standardized patient station: r = 0.61 (95% CI, 0.36-0.76). The Chinese Anesthesiology Milestones demonstrated satisfactory interrater reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and correlation with objective examination scores within our hospital.

Identifying Elements for a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program for Caregivers: An International Delphi Consensus.

Background/Objectives: Caregivers of patients with heart disease may often feel physically, emotionally, and psychologically overwhelmed by their role. The analysis of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) components and caregivers' needs suggests that some interventions may benefit them. Therefore, this study aimed to identify a consensus on the CR components targeting caregivers of patients with heart disease. Methods: A three-round international e-Delphi study with experts on CR was conducted. In round 1, experts provided an electronic level of agreement on a set of initial recommendations originating from a previous scoping review. In round 2, experts were asked to re-rate the same items after feedback and summary data were provided from round 1. In round 3, the same experts were asked to re-rate items that did not reach a consensus from round 2. Results: A total of 57 experts were contacted via e-mail to participate in the Delphi panel, and 43 participated. The final version presents seven recommendations for caregivers of patients with heart disease in CR programs. Conclusions: These recommendations are an overview of the evidence and represent a tool for professionals to adapt to their context in the different stages of CR, integrating the caregiver as a care focus and as support for their sick family members. By identifying the components/interventions, there is potential to benchmark the development of a cardiac rehabilitation strategy to be used and tested by the healthcare team for optimizing the health and role of these caregivers.

Developing and piloting a set of quality-of-care indicators for Romanian public hospitals as part of a national programme to fund quality

BackgroundHealthcare systems aim to enhance the health status and well-being of the individuals and populations they serve. To achieve this, measuring and evaluating the quality and safety of services provided and the outcomes achieved is essential. Like other countries, Romania faces challenges regarding the quality of care provided in its public hospitals. To address this, the Romanian Ministry of Health initiated reforms in 2022, including implementing a pay-for-performance model based on quality indicators. This paper presents a descriptive analysis of processes, methods, results and lessons learned from developing and piloting a set of Quality of Care indicators for Romanian public hospitals.MethodsWorld Health Organization’s Athens Office on Quality of Care and Patient Safety assisted Romania in developing and piloting a set of quality-of-care indicators for public hospitals. The development phase included defining indicator domains, identifying potential indicators across these domains, and defining the final indicator set. The piloting phase involved selecting and recruiting piloting hospitals, developing data collection and validation methods and tools, training hospital staff, and collecting and analysing indicator data. Piloting ended with an evaluation workshop. Mixed, quantitative and qualitative methods were used, including literature reviews, stakeholder consultation workshops, survey instruments developed for this study, modified Delphi panels and consensus-building meetings. National stakeholders were actively involved throughout the process.ResultsFour priority domains were defined for quality-of-care indicators for Romanian public hospitals: patient safety, patient experience, healthcare workforce training and safety, and clinical effectiveness. 25 core indicators were selected across these domains. During the pilot, hospitals achieved an average completion rate of 90% for data submission, with all domains rated equally relevant during post-pilot evaluations. Lessons included the need for supportive legislation, improved internal auditing practices and enhanced staff training, refinement of indicator data collection methods and alignment of indicators with hospital-specific contexts.ConclusionsThis work presents a significant stride in improving Romanian public hospitals’ quality of care and patient safety. It underscores the importance of high-level commitment, stakeholder engagement, and robust data practices in driving successful quality improvement efforts. Emphasising the role of data-driven and patient-centric approaches in achieving optimal healthcare outcomes, lessons learned offer insights for the continuation of quality improvement work in Romania but also for healthcare systems elsewhere.

Pharmacist-facilitated Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) monitoring: developing an EHR SmartForm© to monitor side effects of oral oncolytics during routine telehealth encounters.

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in oncology care, but pharmacists providing direct patient care have been overlooked. We engaged pharmacists and adults receiving oral oncolytics (chemotherapy medication taken by mouth) to develop a SmartForm© in the electronic health record (EHR) for PROM monitoring. Pharmacists verbally ask the patient side effect questions during routine telehealth encounters and enter responses in real time. Our development process was guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework. In phase 1 (Knowledge Inquiry), we prioritized side effects to assess in the EHR SmartForm© via interviews with patients and a Delphi panel with pharmacists. Adults receiving oral oncolytics for breast (n = 12), thoracic (n = 12), or hematological (n = 12) cancer were interviewed, with purposeful sampling for adults who were aged 65 + years or Black. Interviews were coded with content analysis. We conducted three Delphi rounds, with 11/19, 13/19, and 19/19 pharmacists, respectively. In phase 2 (Knowledge Synthesis), PROM items were selected and the EHR SmartForm© programmed. In phase 3 (Knowledge Tailoring), we conducted usability testing with pharmacists. Pharmacists and patients were consistent in prioritizing side effects of oral oncolytics and 10 were retained. Patients advocated asking whether they can do their usual activities, while pharmacists added medication adherence. Usability testing yielded suggestions to simplify the SmartForm©. By presenting screenshots of our SmartForm©, our findings are useful to other healthcare systems looking for a PROM solution integrated in the EHR, with a reasonable pharmacist/clinician workload, and no requirement for patients to have internet access/comfort.

Defining and Validating Criteria to Identify Populations Who May Benefit From Home-Based Primary Care.

Home-based primary care (HBPC) is an important care delivery model for high-need older adults. Currently, target patient populations vary across HBPC programs, hindering expansion and large-scale evaluation. Develop and validate criteria that identify appropriate HBPC target populations. A modified Delphi process was used to achieve expert consensus on criteria for identifying HBPC target populations. All criteria were defined and validated using linked data from Medicare claims and the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) (cohort n=21,727). Construct validation involved assessing demographics and health outcomes/expenditures for selected criteria. Delphi panelists (n=29) represented diverse professional perspectives. Criteria were validated on community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (age above 70) enrolled in NHATS. Criteria were selected via Delphi questionnaires. For construct validation, sociodemographic characteristics of Medicare beneficiaries were self-reported in NHATS, and annual health care expenditures and mortality were obtained via linked Medicare claims. Panelists proposed an algorithm of criteria for HBPC target populations that included indicators for serious illness, functional impairment, and social isolation. The algorithm's Delphi-selected criteria applied to 16.8% of Medicare beneficiaries. These HBPC target populations had higher annual health care costs [Med (IQR): $10,851 (3316, 31,556) vs. $2830 (913, 9574)] and higher 12-month mortality [15% (95% CI: 14, 17) vs. 5% (95% CI: 4, 5)] compared with the total validation cohort. We developed and validated an algorithm to define target populations for HBPC, which suggests a need for increased HBPC availability. By enabling objective identification of unmet demands for HBPC access or resources, this algorithm can foster robust evaluation and equitable expansion of HBPC.

The relationship between the most consumed digital media in Portugal and audience participation mechanisms

IntroductionDigital journalism is well established in Portugal. However, the Portuguese public tend to opt for traditional media websites over those of a digital native nature. This research will confirm whether the reason for the national success of the former type of media is that their websites offer more participation mechanisms for the publics.MethodsBased on a qualitative methodology, an ad hoc methodological instrument was designed that allows for the evaluation of the ways in which audiences can interact with brands and content.Results and discussionThe results are highly surprising, since it is not possible to verify any type of relationship between preferred media and the number of audience participation mechanisms. Experts on a Delphi panel attribute media selection to the audiences’ interest in the stories covered and to the trust placed in the media.

COVID-19 Vaccination Recommendations for Immunocompromised Patient Populations: Delphi Panel and Consensus Statement Generation in the United States.

The United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommend COVID-19 vaccines for all immunocompromised individuals. Certain disease groups are at increased risk of comorbidity and death for which disease-specific recommendations should be considered. The objective of the Delphi panel of experts was to summarize expert consensus on COVID-19 vaccinations for patients with rheumatologic disease, renal disease, hematologic malignancy and solid organ transplant (SOT) in the US. A two-stage Delphi panel method was employed, starting with qualitative interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs) in the four disease areas (n = 4 KOLs, n = 16 total) followed by three rounds of iterative revision of disease-specific COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. Final consensus was rated after the third round. Statements addressed primary and booster dosing (e.g., number and frequency) and other considerations such as vaccine type or heterologous messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccination. Following the Delphi Panel, an online survey was conducted to assess physician agreement within the disease areas (n = 50 each, n = 200 total) with the consensus statements. Moderate to strong consensus was achieved for all primary series vaccination statements across disease groups, except one in hematology. Similarly, moderate to strong consensus was achieved for all booster series statements in all disease areas. However, statements on antibody titer measurements for re-vaccination considerations and higher dosages for immunocompromised patients did not reach agreement. Overall, approximately 62%-96% of physicians strongly agreed with the primary and booster vaccine recommendations. However, low agreement (29%-69%) was found among physicians for time interval between disease-specific treatment and vaccination, recommendations for mRNA vaccines, heterologous mRNA vaccination, antibody titer measurement and higher vaccine dosage for immunocompromised groups. Consensus was achieved for disease-specific COVID-19 vaccine recommendations concerning primary and booster series vaccines and was generally well accepted by practicing physicians.

Asia-Pacific consensus recommendations on the management of generalized pustular psoriasis.

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, chronic, heterogeneous, and potentially life-threatening disease characterized by primary, sterile, and macroscopically visible pustules with or without systemic symptoms. There are ethnic differences in the genetic mutations associated with GPP that might affect the clinical manifestations and treatment responses. Currently, there is limited evidence from the patient population in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region, resulting in a general paucity of information on the effective management of patients with GPP in this region. This modified Delphi panel study aimed to identify current evidence and gain advanced insights to facilitate the development of a regionally tailored APAC consensus on the management of GPP. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify published literature and develop consensus statements on (i) definition and clinical course, (ii) diagnosis of GPP, (iii) treatment outcomes, goals, and monitoring measures, and (iv) optimal management strategies and clinical practices. Statements were rated by a panel of dermatologists in two rounds, with the threshold for consensus at ≥80% agreement. Twenty experts from the APAC region reached consensus on 106 statements that were developed based on the SLR and experts' collective expertise. The experts agreed that GPP is a rare, severe, and potentially life-threatening condition that is distinct from plaque psoriasis. This consensus emphasized the importance of a tailored treatment strategy taking into account the GPP flare severity and each patient's unique clinical circumstances. The experts reached consensus on the severity classification of GPP flares and recommended first-line and maintenance treatment options for adult GPP, childhood GPP, and GPP in pregnancy. These consensus outcomes have been synthesized into treatment algorithms to guide dermatologists in the APAC region in their clinical decision-making processes.

Delphi Panel Consensus Statement Generation: COVID-19 Vaccination Recommendations for Immunocompromised Populations in the European Union.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems globally. The lack of quality guidelines on the management of COVID-19 in rheumatologic disease, renal disease, hematological malignancy, and solid organ transplant recipients has resulted in a wide variation in clinical practice. Using a Delphi process, a panel of 16 key opinion leaders developed clinical practice statements regarding vaccine recommendations in areas where standards are absent or limited. Agreement among practicing physicians with consensus statements was also assessed via an online physician survey. The strength of the consensus was determined by the following rating system: a strong rating was defined as all four key opinion leaders (KOLs) rating the statement ≥ 8, a moderate rating was defined as three out of four KOLs rating the statement ≥ 8, and no consensus was defined as less than three out of four KOLs provided a rating of ≤ 8. Specialists voted on agreement with each consensus statement for their disease area using the same ten-point scoring system. Key opinion leaders in rheumatology, nephrology, and hematology achieved consensuses for all nine statements pertaining to the primary and booster series with transplant physicians reaching consensus on eight of nine statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, effective, and well tolerated by patients with rheumatological conditions, renal disease, hematologic malignancy, and recipients of solid organ transplants. The Delphi process yielded strong to moderate suggestions for the use of COVID-19 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines and the necessity of the COVID-19 booster for the immunocompromised population. The expert panel had mixed feelings concerning the measurement of antibody titers, higher-dose mRNA vaccines, and the development of disease-specific COVID-19 guidance. These results confirmed the necessity of COVID-19 vaccines and boosters in immunocompromised patients with rheumatologic disease, renal disease, hematological malignancy, and solid organ transplant recipients. Statements where consensus was not achieved were due to absent or limited evidence.

Psychometric properties of the Functional Literacy Questionnaire among Portuguese adolescents.

Robust tools to assess self-reported adolescent functional health literacy are lacking. In Portugal, the only available tool is the Newest Vital Sign for Portuguese adolescents (NVS-PTeen), though presenting modest validity and reliability properties. A new instrument-the Functional Literacy Questionnaire (FLiQ)-was developed, inspired by the NVS-PTeen, but following the European Regulation for food labeling and targeting a balanced assessment of numeracy and verbal comprehension skills. This study aimed to evaluate several psychometric properties of the FLiQ when administered to Portuguese adolescents. We conducted a longitudinal observational study with three phases: (1) Delphi panel with health literacy experts; (2) self-administration of FLiQ and NVS-PTeen to adolescents in 7th to 9th grades; and (3) re-administration of FLiQ four weeks after baseline, to the same group of participants. FLiQ's content validity was excellent, with an Average-Content Validity Index of .95. Overall, 372 adolescents (50.3% girls) aged between 12-17 years (median age: 13) participated in the study. Of these, 150 completed the test-retest assessment. Internal consistency was good (Kuder-Richardson Fornula-20 = .70), as well as test-retest reliability (Intraclass Coefficient Correlation = .82). FLiQ total score was weakly correlated with the school year (rho = .174), and moderately with Portuguese (rho = .348) and Mathematics grades (rho = .333). Factor analysis indicated a two-dimension structure, reflecting numeracy and verbal comprehension skills. Item response theory analysis revealed differences in difficulty and discrimination capacity among items, all with adequate fit values. FLiQ is a valid and reliable tool. It can be used to monitor functional health literacy levels in Portuguese adolescents.

Process mapping with failure mode and effects analysis to identify determinants of implementation in healthcare settings: a guide.

Generating and analyzing process maps can help identify and prioritize barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practices in healthcare settings. Guidance on how to systematically apply and report these methods in implementation research is scant. We describe a method combining a qualitative approach to developing process maps with a quantitative evaluation of maps drawn from the quality improvement literature called failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). We provide an outline and guidance for how investigators can use process mapping with FMEA to identify and prioritize barriers when implementing evidence-based clinical interventions. Suggestions for methods and reporting were generated based on established procedures for process mapping with FMEA and through review of original research papers which apply both methods in healthcare settings. We provide case examples to illustrate how this approach can be operationalized in implementation research. The methodology of process mapping with FMEA can be divided into four broad phases: 1) formulating a plan, 2) generating process maps to identify and organize barriers over time, 3) prioritizing barriers through FMEA, and 4) devising an implementation strategy to address priority barriers. We identified 14 steps across the four phases. Two illustrative examples are provided. Case 1 describes the implementation of referrals to chiropractic care for adults with low back pain in primary care clinics. Case 2 describes the implementation of a family navigation intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder seeking care in pediatric clinics. For provisional guidance for reporting, we propose the REporting Process mapping and Analysis for Implementation Research (REPAIR) checklist. Process mapping with FMEA can elucidate barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of evidence-based clinical interventions. This paper provides initial guidance for more systematic applications of this methodology in implementation research. Future research should use a consensus-building approach, such as a multidisciplinary Delphi panel, to further delineate the reporting standards for studies that use process mapping with FMEA.