Consensus on the exercise and dosage variables of an exercise training programme for chronic non-specific neck pain: protocol for an international e-Delphi study

Developing an exercise intervention to improve bone mineral density in traumatic amputees: protocol for a Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Lower limb amputation results in reduced bone mineral density (BMD) on the amputated side. Exercise interventions have proven effective in improving BMD. However, such interventions have not been attempted in an amputee population. Exercises designed for people with intact limbs may not be suitable for amputees, due to joint loss and the mechanical interface between the exercise equipment and the femoral neck being mediated through a socket. Therefore, prior to intervention implementation, it would be prudent to leverage biomechanical knowledge and clinical expertise, alongside scientific evidence in related fields, to assist in intervention development. The objective of this study is to elicit expert opinion and gain consensus to define specific exercise prescription parameters to minimise/recover BMD loss in amputees.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Delphi technique will be used to obtain consensus among international experts; this will be conducted remotely as an e-Delphi process. 10-15 experts from ≥2 continents and ≥5 countries will be identified through published research or clinical expertise. Round 1 will consist of participants being asked to rate their level of agreement with statements related to exercise prescription to improve amputee BMD using a 5-point Likert Scale. Agreement will be deemed as ≥3 on the Likert Scale. Open feedback will be allowed in round 1 and any statement which less than 50% of the experts agree with will be excluded. Round 2 will repeat the remaining statements with the addition of any input from round 1 feedback. Round 3 will allow participants to reflect on their round 2 responses considering statistical representation of group opinion and whether they wish to alter any of their responses accordingly. Statements reaching agreement rates of 70% or above among the experts will be deemed to reach a consensus and will be implemented in a future exercise interventional trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was received from Imperial College Research Ethics Committee (reference: 6463766). Delphi participants will be asked to provide digital informed consent. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

Classification criteria for cervical radiculopathy: An international e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Establishing a set of uniform classification criteria (CC) for cervical radiculopathy (CR) is required to aid future recruitment of homogenous populations to clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES

To establish expert informed consensus on CC for CR.

DESIGN

A pre-defined four round e-Delphi study in accordance with the guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies.

METHODS

Individuals with a background in physiotherapy who had authored two or more peer-reviewed publications on CR were invited to participate. The initial round asked opinions on CC for CR. Content analysis was performed on round one output and a list of discrete items were generated forming the round two survey. In rounds two to four, participants were asked to rate the level of importance of each item on a six-point Likert scale. Data were analysed descriptively using median, interquartile range and percentage agreement. Items reaching pre-defined consensus criteria were carried forward to the next round. Items remaining after the fourth round constituted expert consensus on CC for CR.

RESULTS

Twelve participants participated with one drop out. The final round identified one inclusion CC and 12 exclusion CC. The inclusion CC that remained achieved 82% agreement and was a cluster criterion consisting of radicular pain with arm pain worse than neck pain; paraesthesia or numbness and/or weakness and/or altered reflex; MRI confirmed nerve root compression compatible with clinical findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The CC identified can be used to inform eligibility criteria for future CR trials although caution should be practiced as consensus on measurement tools requires further investigation.

Development of the Practice of Pharmaceutical Care for Cancer Pain Management in Outpatient Clinics Using the Delphi Method

Background: There exists no broad agreement of experts on the practice of pharmaceutical care for cancer pain management in outpatient clinics. Objectives: This study aimed to use the Delphi consensus process to provide expert recommendations on the practice of cancer pain management in outpatient clinics from the point of view of pharmaceutical care in clinical practice and future clinical trials. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to draft the initial practice. In this process, 30-40 senior experts from various provinces in China were invited to rank the items of practice during the two Delphi consultations. The definitions of consensus included a combination with an average score of ≥4, the percentage of experts rating the scores at >4 points, and the coefficient of variation of the scores. Results: The expert panel comprised 18 pharmacists, 3 anesthesiologists, 6 oncologists, and 9 nurses. As a result of a comprehensive review, 33 items were initially formed. Among them, the consensus was reached for 27 items after the first Delphi round. The other six items and a total of five items for supplementation entered the second round, among which consensus was reached for eight items and three items were excluded. Expert consensus was achieved on 35 items after two rounds of consultation, which involved the collection of patient basic information, comprehensive pain assessment, breakthrough or neuropathic pain assessment, analgesic treatment evaluation, out-of-hospital follow-up, medical records, and evidence-based documents for reference. Conclusion: The final list of 35 items could be used to develop the practice of pharmaceutical care for cancer pain management in outpatient clinics in China. The practice may aid in the standardization of pharmaceutical care for pain, relieve pain to the greatest extent possible, and enhance the level of pain management in China.

Expert consensus on a standardised definition and severity classification for adverse events associated with spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilisation: protocol for an international e-Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation (SMT) and mobilisation (MOB) are widely used and recommended in the best practice guidelines for managing musculoskeletal conditions. Although adverse events (AEs) have been reported following these interventions, a clear definition and classification system for AEs remains unsettled. With many professionals using SMT and MOB, establishing consensus on a definition and classification system is needed to assist with the assimilation of AEs data across professions and to inform research priorities to optimise safety in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This international multidisciplinary electronic Delphi study protocol is informed by a scoping review and in accordance with the 'Guidance on Conduction and Reporting Delphi Studies'. With oversight from an expert steering committee, the study comprises three rounds using online questionnaires. Experts in manual therapy and patient safety meeting strict eligibility criteria from the following fields will be invited to participate: clinical, medical and legal practice, health records, regulatory bodies, researchers and patients. Round 1 will include open-ended questions on participants' working definition and/or understanding of AEs following SMT and MOB and their severity classification. In round 2, participants will rate their level of agreement with statements generated from round 1 and our scoping review. In round 3, participants will rerate their agreement with statements achieving consensus in round 2. Statements reaching consensus must meet the a priori criteria, as determined by descriptive analysis. Inferential statistics will be used to evaluate agreement between participants and stability of responses between rounds. Statements achieving consensus in round 3 will provide an expert-derived definition and classification system for AEs following SMT and MOB.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College Research Ethics Board and deemed exempt by Parker University's Institutional Review Board. Results will be disseminated through scientific, professional and educational reports, publications and presentations.

Expert consensus on the important chronic non-specific neck pain motor control and segmental exercise and dosage variables: An international e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Chronic non-specific neck pain is highly prevalent, resulting in significant disability. Despite exercise being a mainstay treatment, guidance on optimal exercise and dosage variables is lacking. Combining submaximal effort deep cervical muscles exercise (motor control) and superficial cervical muscles exercise (segmental) reduces chronic non-specific neck pain, but evaluation of optimal exercise and dosage variables is prevented by clinical heterogeneity.

OBJECTIVE

To gain consensus on important motor control and segmental exercise and dosage variables for chronic non-specific neck pain.

METHODS

An international 3-round e-Delphi study, was conducted with experts in neck pain management (academic and clinical). In round 1, exercise and dosage variables were obtained from expert opinion and clinical trial data, then analysed thematically (two independent researchers) to develop themes and statements. In rounds 2 and 3, participants rated their agreement with statements (1-5 Likert scale). Statement consensus was evaluated using progressively increased a priori criteria using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven experts participated (10 countries). Twenty-nine responded to round 1 (79%), 26 round 2 (70%) and 24 round 3 (65%). Round 1 generated 79 statements outlining the interacting components of exercise prescription. Following rounds 2 and 3, consensus was achieved for 46 important components of exercise and dosage prescription across 5 themes (clinical reasoning, dosage variables, exercise variables, evaluation criteria and progression) and 2 subthemes (progression criteria and progression variables). Excellent agreement and qualitative data supports exercise prescription complexity and the need for individualised, acceptable, and feasible exercise. Only 37% of important exercise components were generated from clinical trial data. Agreement was highest (88%-96%) for 3 dosage variables: intensity of effort, frequency, and repetitions.

CONCLUSION

Multiple exercise and dosage variables are important, resulting in complex and individualised exercise prescription not found in clinical trials. Future research should use these important variables to prescribe an evidence-informed approach to exercise.

Prioritization of patient safety health policies: Delphi survey using patient safety experts in Japan

Various patient safety interventions have been implemented since the late 1990s, but their evaluation has been lacking. To obtain basic information for prioritizing patient safety interventions, this study aimed to extract high-priority interventions in Japan and to identify the factors that influence the setting of priority. Six perspectives (contribution, dissemination, impact, cost, urgency, and priority) on 42 patient safety interventions classified into 3 levels (system, organizational, and clinical) were evaluated by Japanese experts using the Delphi technique. We examined the relationships of the levels and the perspectives on interventions with the transition of the consensus state in rounds 1 and 3. After extracting the high-priority interventions, a chi-squared test was used to examine the relationship of the levels and the impact/cost ratio with high priority. Regression models were used to examine the influence of each perspective on priority. There was a significant relationship between the level of interventions and the transition of the consensus state (p = 0.033). System-level interventions had a low probability of achieving consensus. “Human resources interventions,” “professional education and training,” “medication management/reconciliation protocols,” “pay-for performance (P4P) schemes and financing for safety,” “digital technology solutions to improve safety,” and “hand hygiene initiatives” were extracted as high-priority interventions. The level and the impact/cost ratio of interventions had no significant relationships with high priority. In the regression model, dissemination and impact had an influence on priority (β = -0.628 and 0.941, respectively; adjusted R-squared = 0.646). The influence of impact and dissemination on the priority of interventions suggests that it is important to examine the dissemination degree and impact of interventions in each country for prioritizing interventions.