Vaginal birth core information set: study protocol for a Delphi study to achieve a consensus on a 'core information set' for vaginal birth

INTRODUCTION

Studies have shown that women are often underinformed about potential benefits and risks of vaginal birth. This is in contrast to other modes of birth, such as caesarean birth, for which the risks/benefits are often conveyed prior to undergoing the procedure. A core information set (CIS) is an agreed set of information points that should be discussed with all patients prior to undergoing a procedure or intervention. This CIS could improve the quality of information given regarding mode of birth options, as women will be given information prioritised by patients and stakeholders regarding vaginal birth, empowering them to make informed decisions about their birth. We aim to describe the protocol for the development of this vaginal birth CIS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will develop the CIS by: (1) Compiling a 'long-list' of information points about vaginal birth by: undertaking a scoping review of studies and patient information leaflets; interviews with antenatal/postnatal women, an online survey of stakeholders. (2) Collating the 'long-list' of information points and developing the Delphi survey. Think-aloud interviews will refine the survey. (3) Conducting a two-round Delphi survey. 200 stakeholder participants will be recruited. Items rated critically important by ≥80% of participants in one stakeholder group, or with no consensus, will be carried through to a stakeholder consensus meeting to decide the final CIS. Planned start date is 1 June 2022. Planned end date is 31 August 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project has been given a favourable ethics opinion by the University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 10530). Approval from the ethics committee will be sought for any protocol amendments, and the principal investigator will be responsible for these changes. Findings will be presented at relevant conferences and published in a high-impact journal. We will disseminate the CIS, via Policy Bristol, to clinical policy and guideline developers.

Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development

BACKGROUND

Methods for developing a core outcome or information set require involvement of key stakeholders to prioritise many items and achieve agreement as to the core set. The Delphi technique requires participants to rate the importance of items in sequential questionnaires (or rounds) with feedback provided in each subsequent round such that participants are able to consider the views of others. This study examines the impact of receiving feedback from different stakeholder groups, on the subsequent rating of items and the level of agreement between stakeholders.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were nested within the development of three core sets each including a Delphi process with two rounds of questionnaires, completed by patients and health professionals. Participants rated items from 1 (not essential) to 9 (absolutely essential). For round 2, participants were randomized to receive feedback from their peer stakeholder group only (peer) or both stakeholder groups separately (multiple). Decisions as to which items to retain following each round were determined by pre-specified criteria.

RESULTS

Whilst type of feedback did not impact on the percentage of items for which a participant subsequently changed their rating, or the magnitude of change, it did impact on items retained at the end of round 2. Each core set contained discordant items retained by one feedback group but not the other (3-22 % discordant items). Consensus between patients and professionals in items to retain was greater amongst those receiving multiple group feedback in each core set (65-82 % agreement for peer-only feedback versus 74-94 % for multiple feedback). In addition, differences in round 2 scores were smaller between stakeholder groups receiving multiple feedback than between those receiving peer group feedback only. Variability in item scores across stakeholders was reduced following any feedback but this reduction was consistently greater amongst the multiple feedback group.

CONCLUSIONS

In the development of a core outcome or information set, providing feedback within Delphi questionnaires from all stakeholder groups separately may influence the final core set and improve consensus between the groups. Further work is needed to better understand how participants rate and re-rate items within a Delphi process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The three randomized controlled trials reported here were each nested within the development of a core information or outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome and information set development. Outcomes were not health-related and therefore trial registration was not applicable.