A modified Delphi process to establish future research priorities in malignant oesophagogastric surgery

Social Determinants of Health and Surgical Desirability of Outcome Ranking in Older Veterans

Importance

Evaluating how social determinants of health (SDOH) influence veteran outcomes is crucial, particularly for quality improvement.

Objective

To measure associations between SDOH, care fragmentation, and surgical outcomes using a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR).

Design, Setting, And Participants

This was a cohort study of US veterans using data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Surgical Quality Improvement Program (VASQIP; 2013-2019) limited to patients aged 65 years or older with inpatient stays between 2 and 30 days, merged with multiple data sources, including Medicare. Race and ethnicity data were retrieved from VASQIP, Medicare and Medicaid beneficiary summary files, the Veterans Health Administration Corporate Data Warehouse, and the United States Veterans Eligibility Trends and Statistics file. Data were analyzed between September 2023 and February 2024.

Exposure

Living in a highly deprived neighborhood (Area Deprivation Index >85), race and ethnicity used as a social construct, rurality, and care fragmentation (percentage of non-VA care days).

Main Outcomes and Measures

DOOR is a composite, patient-centered ranking of 26 outcomes ranging from no complication (1, best) to 90-day mortality or near-death complications (6, worst). A series of proportional odds regressions was used to assess the impact of SDOH and care fragmentation adjusted for clinical risk factors, including presentation acuity (presenting with preoperative acute serious conditions and urgent or emergent surgical procedures).

Results

The cohort had 93 644 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.3 [6.2] years; 91 443 [97.6%] male; 74 624 [79.7%] White). Veterans who identified as Black (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10; P = .048) vs White and veterans with higher care fragmentation (per 20% increase in VA care days relative to all care days: aOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; P < .001) were associated with worse (higher) DOOR scores until adjusting for presentation acuity. Living in rural geographic areas was associated with better DOOR scores than living in urban areas (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96; P < .001), and rurality was associated with lower presentation acuity (preoperative acute serious conditions: aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.95; P = .001). Presentation acuity was higher in veterans identifying as Black, living in deprived neighborhoods, and with increased care fragmentation.

Conclusions and Relevance

Veterans identifying as Black and veterans with greater proportions of non-VA care had worse surgical outcomes. VA programs should direct resources to reduce presentation acuity among Black veterans, incentivize veterans to receive care within the VA where possible, and better coordinate veterans' treatment and records between care sources.

Evaluating Functional Performance Tests in those with Non-arthritic Intra-articular Hip Pain: An International Consensus Statement

Background

Non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain, caused by various pathologies, leads to impairments in range of motion, strength, balance, and neuromuscular control. Although functional performance tests offer valuable insights in evaluating these patients, no clear consensus exists regarding the optimal tests for this patient population.

Purpose

This study aimed to establish expert consensus on the application and selection of functional performance tests in individuals presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain.

Study Design

A modified Delphi technique was used with fourteen physical therapy experts, all members of the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy (ISHA). The panelists participated in three rounds of questions and related discussions to reach full consensus on the application and selection of functional performance tests.

Results

The panel agreed that functional performance tests should be utilized at initial evaluation, re-evaluations, and discharge, as well as criterion for assessing readiness for returning to sports. Tests should be as part of a multimodal assessment of neuromuscular control, strength, range of motion, and balance, applied in a graded fashion depending on the patient's characteristics. Clinicians should select functional performance tests with objective scoring criteria and prioritize the use of tests with supporting psychometric evidence. A list of recommended functional performance tests with varying intensity levels is provided. Low-intensity functional performance tests encompass controlled speed in a single plane with no impact. Medium-intensity functional performance tests involve controlled speed in multiple planes with low impact. High-intensity functional performance tests include higher speeds in multiple planes with higher impact and agility requirements. Sport-specific movement tests should mimic the patient's particular activity or sport.

Conclusion

This international consensus statement provides recommendations for clinicians regarding selection and utilization of functional performance tests for those with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. These recommendations will encourage greater consistency and standardization among clinicians during a physical therapy assessment.

Research Priorities in Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery: An International Delphi Study

BACKGROUND

Recently, the number of prehabilitation trials has increased significantly. The identification of key research priorities is vital in guiding future research directions. Thus, the aim of this collaborative study was to define key research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery.

METHODS

The Delphi methodology was implemented over three rounds of surveys distributed to prehabilitation experts from across multiple specialties, tumour streams and countries via a secure online platform. In the first round, participants were asked to provide baseline demographics and to identify five top prehabilitation research priorities. In successive rounds, participants were asked to rank research priorities on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was considered if > 70% of participants indicated agreement on each research priority.

RESULTS

A total of 165 prehabilitation experts participated, including medical doctors, physiotherapists, dieticians, nurses, and academics across four continents. The first round identified 446 research priorities, collated within 75 unique research questions. Over two successive rounds, a list of 10 research priorities reached international consensus of importance. These included the efficacy of prehabilitation on varied postoperative outcomes, benefit to specific patient groups, ideal programme composition, cost efficacy, enhancing compliance and adherence, effect during neoadjuvant therapies, and modes of delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

This collaborative international study identified the top 10 research priorities in prehabilitation for patients undergoing cancer surgery. The identified priorities inform research strategies, provide future directions for prehabilitation research, support resource allocation and enhance the prehabilitation evidence base in cancer patients undergoing surgery.

Ilizaliturri Jr. V, Kohlrieser D, Laskovski J, Lifshitz L, P. McGovern R, Monnington K, O’Donnell J, Takla A, Tyler T, Voight M, Wuerz T, Martin RL. The 2022 International Society for Hip Preservation (ISHA) physiotherapy agreement on assessment and treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS): an international consensus statement

The 2022 International Society of Hip Preservation (ISHA) physiotherapy agreement on assessment and treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) was intended to present a physiotherapy consensus on the assessment and surgical and non-surgical physiotherapy management of patients with GTPS. The panel consisted of 15 physiotherapists and eight orthopaedic surgeons. Currently, there is a lack of high-quality literature supporting non-operative and operative physiotherapy management. Therefore, a group of physiotherapists who specialize in the treatment of non-arthritic hip pathology created this consensus statement regarding physiotherapy management of GTPS. The consensus was conducted using a modified Delphi technique to guide physiotherapy-related decisions according to the current knowledge and expertise regarding the following: (i) evaluation of GTPS, (ii) non-surgical physiotherapy management, (iii) use of corticosteroids and orthobiologics and (iv) surgical indications and post-operative physiotherapy management.

A modified Delphi process to establish research priorities in hernia surgery

BACKGROUND

Abdominal wall hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide, yet despite this, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to support best management. The aim of the study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine future research priorities in this field.

METHODS

Stakeholders were invited by email, using British Hernia Society membership details or Twitter, to submit individual research questions via an online survey. In addition, questions obtained from a patient focus group (PFG) were collated to form Phase I. Two rounds of prioritization by stakeholders (phases II and III) were then completed to determine a final list of research questions. All questions were analyzed on an anonymized basis.

RESULTS

A total of 266 questions, 19 from the PFG, were submitted by 113 stakeholders in Phase I. Of these, 64 questions were taken forward for prioritization in Phase II, which was completed by 107 stakeholders. Following Phase II analysis, 97 stakeholders prioritized 36 questions in Phase III. This resulted in a final list of 14 research questions, 3 of which were from the PFG. Stakeholders included patients and healthcare professionals (consultant surgeons, trainee surgeons and other multidisciplinary members) from over 27 countries during the 3 phases.

CONCLUSION

The study has identified 14 key research priorities pertaining to abdominal wall hernia surgery. Uniquely, these priorities have been determined from participation by both healthcare professionals and patients. These priorities should now be addressed by well-designed, high-quality international collaborative research.

Identifying priorities for sport and physical activity research in Canada: an iterative priority-setting study

BACKGROUND

There is a need for better alignment between research on sport and physical activity and the needs of those who are in a position to implement the findings. To facilitate advancement and alignment, we identified the top research priorities of sport and physical activity knowledge users from various sectors.

METHODS

For this priority-setting study, we used an iterative process of data collection and analysis. Sport and physical activity knowledge users from multiple sectors participated in a workshop (September 2019), which included small working group exercises followed by large-group syntheses leading to the identification of issues that required better understanding. We then sent an online questionnaire to participants for content validation and interim prioritization, to reduce the number of priorities (December 2019 to January 2020). A new questionnaire containing a shortened list of research priorities was sent to an expanded group of respondents to further streamline the list of priorities (January-March 2020).

RESULTS

The 24 workshop participants identified 68 issues, of which 21 were retained by the 18 participants in the interim priority-setting questionnaire. The final prioritization questionnaire was completed by 33 stakeholder groups; this step produced a final list of 8 top research priorities. The final priorities identified for sport and physical activity research related to financial support, suboptimal promotion, dropout, best interventions, participation among Indigenous populations, volunteer engagement, safe and inclusive experiences, and knowledge exchange.

INTERPRETATION

The 8 priorities identified in this study provide guidance to Canadian sport and physical activity researchers. Research efforts on these priorities will reflect pressing issues as identified by representatives of all sport and physical activity sectors.

Use of a modified Delphi process to develop research priorities in major trauma

Purpose

The burden of major trauma within the UK is ever increasing. There is a need to establish research priorities within the field. Delphi methodology can be used to develop consensus opinion amongst a group of stakeholders. This can be used to prioritise clinically relevant, patient-centred research questions to guide future funding allocations. The aim of our study was to identify key future research priorities pertaining to the management of major trauma in the UK.

Methods

A three-phased modified Delphi process was undertaken. Phase 1 involved the submission of research questions by members of the trauma community using an online survey (Phase 1). Phases 2 and 3 involved two consecutive rounds of prioritisation after questions were subdivided into 6 subcategories: Brain Injury, Rehabilitation, Trauma in Older People, Pre-hospital, Interventional, and Miscellaneous (Phases 2 and 3). Cut-off points were agreed by consensus amongst the steering subcommittees. This established a final prioritised list of research questions.

Results

In phase 1, 201 questions were submitted by 65 stakeholders. After analysis and with consensus achieved, 186 questions were taken forward for prioritisation in phase 2 with 114 included in phase 3. 56 prioritised major trauma research questions across the 6 categories were identified with a clear focus on long-term patient outcomes. Research priorities across the patient pathway from roadside to rehabilitation were deemed of importance.

Conclusions

Consensus within the major trauma community has identified 56 key research questions across 6 categories. Dissemination of these questions to funding bodies to allow for the development of high-quality research is now required. There is a clear indication for targeted multi-centre multi-disciplinary research in major trauma.

Research priorities in cardiovascular imaging

Aim

A modified Delphi approach was used to develop consensus opinion among British Society for Cardiac Imaging/British Society of Cardiac CT (BSCI/BSCCT) members in order to prioritise research questions in cardiovascular imaging.

Methods

All members of the BSCI/BSCCT were invited to submit research questions that they considered to be of the highest clinical and/or academic priority in the field of cardiovascular imaging (phase 1). Subsequently a steering committee removed duplicate questions and combined questions of a similar theme by consensus agreement where appropriate. BSCI/BSCCT members were invited to rank the resulting research questions in two further iterative rounds (phases 2 and 3) to determine a final list of high-priority research questions.

Results

A total of 111 research questions were submitted in phase 1 by 30 BSCI/BSCCT members. While there was a broad range of topics, from determining the optimal features/markers of the vulnerable plaque to investigating how cardiac imaging can best be used to maximise clinical outcomes and economic costs, multimodality imaging-related (n=44, 40%) questions dominated the categories and coronary artery imaging (n=40, 36%) was the most common topic. Over two iterative rounds of prioritisation of these research questions, the original 111 were reduced to 75 questions in round 2, and 25 in round 3. From these 25 a final Top 10 list was distilled by consensus grouping.

Conclusion

This study has identified and ranked the top research priorities in cardiovascular imaging, as identified by the BSCI/BSCCT membership. This is a first step towards identifying the cardiovascular imaging research priorities within the UK and may assist researchers and funding bodies alike in setting priorities.