How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a "Core Outcome Set" - a practical guideline

BACKGROUND

In cooperation with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative, the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative aimed to develop a guideline on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes (i.e., constructs or domains) included in a "Core Outcome Set" (COS). A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease or trial population.

METHODS

Informed by a literature review to identify potentially relevant tasks on outcome measurement instrument selection, a Delphi study was performed among a panel of international experts, representing diverse stakeholders. In three consecutive rounds, panelists were asked to rate the importance of different tasks in the selection of outcome measurement instruments, to justify their choices, and to add other relevant tasks. Consensus was defined as being achieved when 70 % or more of the panelists agreed and when fewer than 15 % of the panelists disagreed.

RESULTS

Of the 481 invited experts, 120 agreed to participate of whom 95 (79 %) completed the first Delphi questionnaire. We reached consensus on four main steps in the selection of outcome measurement instruments for COS: Step 1, conceptual considerations; Step 2, finding existing outcome measurement instruments, by means of a systematic review and/or a literature search; Step 3, quality assessment of outcome measurement instruments, by means of the evaluation of the measurement properties and feasibility aspects of outcome measurement instruments; and Step 4, generic recommendations on the selection of outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS (consensus ranged from 70 to 99 %).

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in a consensus-based guideline on the methods for selecting outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a COS. This guideline can be used by COS developers in defining how to measure core outcomes.

COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Scores on an outcome measurement instrument depend on the type and settings of the instrument used, how instructions are given to patients, how professionals administer and score the instrument, etc. The impact of all these sources of variation on scores can be assessed in studies on reliability and measurement error, if properly designed and analyzed. The aim of this study was to develop standards to assess the quality of studies on reliability and measurement error of clinician-reported outcome measurement instruments, performance-based outcome measurement instrument, and laboratory values.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-round Delphi study involving 52 panelists.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on how a comprehensive research question can be deduced from the design of a reliability study to determine how the results of a study inform us about the quality of the outcome measurement instrument at issue. Consensus was reached on components of outcome measurement instruments, i.e. the potential sources of variation. Next, we reached consensus on standards on design requirements (n = 5), standards on preferred statistical methods for reliability (n = 3) and measurement error (n = 2), and their ratings on a four-point scale. There was one term for a component and one rating of one standard on which no consensus was reached, and therefore required a decision by the steering committee.

CONCLUSION

We developed a tool that enables researchers with and without thorough knowledge on measurement properties to assess the quality of a study on reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments.

Key elements for, and indicators of, a successful transition: an international Delphi study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to reach an international consensus to determine what key elements should be part of a transition program and what indicators could be used to assess its success.

METHODS

For this purpose, a Delphi study including an international panel of 37 experts was carried out. The study consisted of three rounds, with response rates ranging from 86.5% to 95%. At each round, experts were asked to assess key elements (defined as the most important elements for the task) and indicators (defined as quantifiable characteristics). At each round, panelists were contacted via e-mail explaining them the tasks to be done and giving them the Web link where to complete the questionnaire. At Round 3, each key element and indicator was assessed as essential, very important, important, accessory, or unnecessary. A 70% agreement was used as cutoff.

RESULTS

At Round 3, more than 70% of panelists agreed on six key elements being essential, with one of them (Assuring a good coordination between pediatric and adult professionals) reaching an almost complete consensus (97%). Additionally, 11 more obtained more than 70% agreement when combined with the Very important category. Among indicators, only one (Patient not lost to follow-up) was considered almost unanimously (91%) as essential by the panelists and seven others also reached consensus when the Very important category was included.

CONCLUSIONS

Using these results as a framework to develop guidelines at local, national, and international levels would allow better assessing and comparing transition programs.

Towards a taxonomy for integrated care: a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Building integrated services in a primary care setting is considered an essential important strategy for establishing a high-quality and affordable health care system. The theoretical foundations of such integrated service models are described by the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care, which distinguishes six integration dimensions (clinical, professional, organisational, system, functional and normative integration). The aim of the present study is to refine the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care by developing a taxonomy that specifies the underlying key features of the six dimensions.

METHODS

First, a literature review was conducted to identify features for achieving integrated service delivery. Second, a thematic analysis method was used to develop a taxonomy of key features organised into the dimensions of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. Finally, the appropriateness of the key features was tested in a Delphi study among Dutch experts.

RESULTS

The taxonomy consists of 59 key features distributed across the six integration dimensions of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. Key features associated with the clinical, professional, organisational and normative dimensions were considered appropriate by the experts. Key features linked to the functional and system dimensions were considered less appropriate.

DISCUSSION

This study contributes to the ongoing debate of defining the concept and typology of integrated care. This taxonomy provides a development agenda for establishing an accepted scientific framework of integrated care from an end-user, professional, managerial and policy perspective.

Standardised method for reporting exercise programmes: protocol for a modified Delphi study

INTRODUCTION

Exercise is integral to health across the lifespan and important for people with chronic health conditions. A systematic review of exercise trials for chronic conditions reported suboptimal descriptions of the evaluated interventions and concluded that this hinders interpretation and replication. The aim of this project is to develop a standardised method for reporting essential exercise programme details being evaluated in clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A modified Delphi technique will be used to gain consensus among international exercise experts. We will use three sequential rounds of anonymous online questionnaires to refine a standardised checklist. A draft checklist of potentially relevant items was developed based on the results of a systematic review of exercise systematic reviews. An international panel of experts was identified by exercise systematic review authorship, established international profile in exercise research and practice and by peer referral. In round 1, the international panel of experts will be asked to rate the importance of each draft item and provide additional suggestions for revisions or new items. Consensus will be considered reached if at least 70% of the panel strongly agree/disagree that an item should be included or excluded. Where agreement is not reached or there are suggestions for altered or new items, these will be taken to round 2 together with an aggregated summary of round 1 responses. Following the second round, a ranking of item importance will be made to rationalise the number of items. The final template will be distributed to panel members for approval.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval was received from The Cabrini Institute Ethics Committee, Melbourne, Australia (HREC 02-07-04-14). We plan to use a stepwise process to develop and refine a standardised and internationally agreed template for explicit reporting of exercise programmes. The template will be generalisable across all types of exercise interventions. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Expert and patient consensus on a dynamic model for shared decision-making in frail older patients

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended as a way to support patients in making healthcare choices. Due to an ageing population, the number of older patients will increase. Existing models for SDM are not sufficient for this patient group, due to their multi-morbidity, the lack of guidelines and evidence applicable to the numerous combinations of diseases. The aim of this study was to gain consensus on a model for SDM in frail older patients with multiple morbidities.

METHODS

We used a three-round Delphi study to reach consensus on a model for SDM in older patients with multiple morbidities. The expert panel consisted of 16 patients (round 1), and 59 professionals (rounds 1-3). In round 1, the SDM model was introduced, rounds 2 and 3 were used to validate the importance and feasibility of the SDM model.

RESULTS

Consensus for the proposed SDM model as a whole was achieved for both importance (91% panel agreement) and feasibility (76% panel agreement).

CONCLUSIONS

SDM in older patients with multiple morbidities is a dynamic process. It requires a continuous counselling dialogue between professional and patient or proxy decision maker.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The developed model for SDM in clinical practice may help professionals to apply SDM in the complex situation of the care for older patients.

Defining metabolically healthy obesity in children: a scoping review

We conducted a scoping review to identify definitions of metabolically healthy obesity (MHO), describe gaps in the literature, and establish a universal definition of MHO in children. We searched electronic databases from January 1980 to June 2017 and grey literature. Experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational studies were eligible for inclusion if they (i) included a definition of MHO that identified risk factors, cut-off values, and the number of criteria used to define MHO, and (ii) classified 2-18 year olds as overweight or obese. Two reviewers independently screened 1,711 papers for relevance and quality; we extracted data from 39 individual reports that met inclusion criteria. Most (31/39; 79%) definitions of MHO included an absence of cardiometabolic risk factors. Heterogeneity across MHO definitions, obesity criteria, and sample sizes/characteristics resulted in variable prevalence estimates (3-80%). Finally, we convened an international panel of 46 experts to complete a 4-round Delphi process to generate a consensus-based definition of MHO. Based on consensus (≥ 80% agreement), our definition of MHO included: high density lipoprotein-cholesterol > 40 mg/dl (or > 1.03 mmol/l), triglycerides ≤ 150 mg/dl (or ≤ 1.7 mmol/l), systolic and diastolic blood pressure ≤ 90th percentile, and a measure of glycemia. This definition of MHO holds potential universal value to enable comparisons between studies and inform clinical decision-making for children with obesity.

Consensus-Based Core Set of Outcome Measures for Clinical Motor Rehabilitation After Stroke-A Delphi Study

Introduction: Outcome measures are key to tailor rehabilitation goals to the stroke patient's individual needs and to monitor poststroke recovery. The large number of available outcome measures leads to high variability in clinical use. Currently, an internationally agreed core set of motor outcome measures for clinical application is lacking. Therefore, the goal was to develop such a set to serve as a quality standard in clinical motor rehabilitation poststroke.

Methods: Outcome measures for the upper and lower extremities, and activities of daily living (ADL)/stroke-specific outcomes were identified and presented to stroke rehabilitation experts in an electronic Delphi study. In round 1, clinical feasibility and relevance of the outcome measures were rated on a 7-point Likert scale. In round 2, those rated at least as “relevant” and “feasible” were ranked within the body functions, activities, and participation domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Furthermore, measurement time points poststroke were indicated. In round 3, answers were reviewed in reference to overall results to reach final consensus.

Results: In total, 119 outcome measures were presented to 33 experts from 18 countries. The recommended core set includes the Fugl–Meyer Motor Assessment and Action Research Arm Test for the upper extremity section; the Fugl–Meyer Motor Assessment, 10-m Walk Test, Timed-Up-and-Go, and Berg Balance Scale for the lower extremity section; and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and Barthel Index or Functional Independence Measure for the ADL/stroke-specific section. The Stroke Impact Scale was recommended spanning all ICF domains. Recommended measurement time points are days 2 ± 1 and 7; weeks 2, 4, and 12; 6 months poststroke and every following 6th month.

Discussion and Conclusion: Agreement was found upon a set of nine outcome measures for application in clinical motor rehabilitation poststroke, with seven measurement time points following the stages of poststroke recovery. This core set was specifically developed for clinical practice and distinguishes itself from initiatives for stroke rehabilitation research. The next challenge is to implement this clinical core set across the full stroke care continuum with the aim to improve the transparency, comparability, and quality of stroke rehabilitation at a regional, national, and international level.

Management goals for type 1 Gaucher disease: An expert consensus document from the European working group on Gaucher disease

Gaucher Disease type 1 (GD1) is a lysosomal disorder that affects many systems. Therapy improves the principal manifestations of the condition and, as a consequence, many patients show a modified phenotype which reflects manifestations of their disease that are refractory to treatment. More generally, it is increasingly recognised that information as to how a patient feels and functions [obtained by patient- reported outcome measurements (PROMs)] is critical to any comprehensive evaluation of treatment. A new set of management goals for GD1 in which both trends are reflected is needed. To this end, a modified Delphi procedure among 25 experts was performed. Based on a literature review and with input from patients, 65 potential goals were formulated as statements. Consensus was considered to be reached when ≥75% of the participants agreed to include that specific statement in the management goals. There was agreement on 42 statements. In addition to the traditional goals concerning haematological, visceral and bone manifestations, improvement in quality of life, fatigue and social participation, as well as early detection of long-term complications or associated diseases were included. When applying this set of goals in medical practice, the clinical status of the individual patient should be taken into account.

From "Breakthrough" to "Episodic" Cancer Pain? A European Association for Palliative Care Research Network Expert Delphi Survey Toward a Common Terminology and Classification of Transient Cancer Pain Exacerbations

CONTEXT

Cancer pain can appear with spikes of higher intensity. Breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP) is the most common term for the transient exacerbations of pain, but the ability of the nomenclature to capture relevant pain variations and give treatment guidance is questionable.

OBJECTIVES

To reach consensus on definitions, terminology, and subclassification of transient cancer pain exacerbations.

METHODS

The most frequent authors on BTCP literature were identified using the same search strategy as in a systematic review and invited to participate in a two-round Delphi survey. Topics with a low degree of consensus on BTCP classification were refined into 20 statements. The participants rated their degree of agreement with the statements on a numeric rating scale (0-10). Consensus was defined as a median numeric rating scale score of ≥7 and an interquartile range of ≤3.

RESULTS

Fifty-two authors had published three or more articles on BTCP over the past 10 years. Twenty-seven responded in the first round and 24 in the second round. Consensus was reached for 13 of 20 statements. Transient cancer pain exacerbations can occur without background pain, when background pain is uncontrolled, and regardless of opioid treatment. There exist cancer pain exacerbations other than BTCP, and the phenomenon could be named "episodic pain." Patient-reported treatment satisfaction is important with respect to assessment. Subclassification according to pain pathophysiology can provide treatment guidance.

CONCLUSION

Significant transient cancer pain exacerbations include more than just BTCP. Patient input and pain classification are important factors for tailoring treatment.

A look into the future of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe: an expert consultation

How will the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic develop in the coming months and years? Based on an expert survey, we examine key aspects that are likely to influence the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. The challenges and developments will strongly depend on the progress of national and global vaccination programs, the emergence and spread of variants of concern (VOCs), and public responses to non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). In the short term, many people remain unvaccinated, VOCs continue to emerge and spread, and mobility and population mixing are expected to increase. Therefore, lifting restrictions too much and too early risk another damaging wave. This challenge remains despite the reduced opportunities for transmission given vaccination progress and reduced indoor mixing in summer 2021. In autumn 2021, increased indoor activity might accelerate the spread again, whilst a necessary reintroduction of NPIs might be too slow. The incidence may strongly rise again, possibly filling intensive care units, if vaccination levels are not high enough. A moderate, adaptive level of NPIs will thus remain necessary. These epidemiological aspects combined with economic, social, and health-related consequences provide a more holistic perspective on the future of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Moving forward through consensus: protocol for a modified Delphi approach to determine the top research priorities in the field of orthopaedic oncology

INTRODUCTION

Orthopaedic oncology researchers face several obstacles in the design and execution of randomised controlled trials, including finite fiscal resources to support the rising costs of clinical research and insufficient patient volume at individual sites. As a result, high-quality research to guide clinical practice has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. A focused approach is imperative to design a research programme that is economical, streamlined and addresses clinically relevant endpoints. The primary objective of this study will be to use a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for international clinical trials in orthopaedic oncology.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a 3-phase modified Delphi method consisting of 2 sequential rounds of anonymous web-based questionnaires (phases I and II), and an in-person consensus meeting (phase III). Participants will suggest research questions that they believe are of particular importance to the field (phase I), and individually rate each proposed question on 5 criteria (phase II). Research questions that meet predetermined consensus thresholds will be brought forward to the consensus meeting (phase III) for discussion by an expert panel. Following these discussions, the expert panel will be asked to assign scores for each research question, and research questions meeting predetermined criteria will be brought forward for final ranking. The expert panel will then be asked to rank the top 3 research questions, and these 3 research questions will be distributed to the initial group of participants for validation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

An ethics application is currently under review with the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The results of this initiative will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for children and adolescents: An international Delphi study-Part 1-Development of Axis I

Background

Since in children and adolescence prevalence is assessed mainly on self‐reported or proxy‐reported signs and symptoms; there is a need to develop a more comprehensive standardised process for the collection of clinical information and the diagnosis of TMD in these populations.

Objective

To develop new instruments and to adapt the diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) for the evaluation of TMD in children and adolescents.

Method

A modified Delphi method was used to seek international consensus among TMD experts. Fourteen clinicians and researchers in the field of oro‐facial pain and TMD worldwide were invited to participate in a workshop initiated by the International Network for Orofacial Pain and Related Disorders Methodology (INfORM scientific network) at the General Session of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR, London 2018), as the first step in the Delphi process. Participants discussed the protocols required to make physical diagnoses included in the Axis I of the DC/TMD. Thereafter, nine experts in the field were added, and the first Delphi round was created. This survey included 60 statements for Axis I, and the experts were asked to respond to each statement on a five‐item Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. Consensus level was set at 80% agreement for the first round, and at 70% for the next.

Results

After three rounds of the Delphi process, a consensus among TMD experts was achieved and two adapted DC/TMD protocols for Axis I physical diagnoses for children and adolescents were developed.

Conclusion

Through international consensus among TMD experts, this study adapted the Axis I of the DC/TMD for use in evaluating TMD in children and adolescents.

A survey of Delphi panelists after core outcome set development revealed positive feedback and methods to facilitate panel member participation

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to elicit feedback on consensus methodology used for core outcome set (COS) development.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

An online survey of international Delphi panelists participating in a recent COS for clinical research studies evaluating acute respiratory failure (ARF) survivors was conducted. Panelists represented 14 countries (56% outside the United States).

RESULTS

Seventy (92%) panelists completed the survey, including 32 researchers, 19 professional association representatives, 4 research funding representatives, and 15 ARF survivors/caregiver members. Among respondents, 91% reported that the time required to participate was appropriate and 96% were not bothered by reminders for timely response. Attributes of measurement instruments and voting results from previous rounds were evaluated differently across stakeholder groups. When measurement properties were explained in the stem of the survey question, 59 (84%) panelists (including 73% of survivors/families) correctly interpreted information about an instrument's reliability. Without a reminder in the stem, only 20 (29%) panelists (including 38% of researchers) correctly identified properties of a COS.

CONCLUSION

This international Delphi panel, including >20% patients/caregivers, favorably reported on feasibility of the methodology. Providing all panelists pertinent information/reminders about the project's objective at each voting round is important to informed decision making across all stakeholder groups.

Proposed diagnostic criteria for compulsive buying-shopping disorder: A Delphi expert consensus study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Consensus in acknowledging compulsive buying-shopping disorder (CBSD) as a distinct diagnosis has been lacking. Before research in this area can be advanced, it is necessary to establish diagnostic criteria in order to facilitate field trials.

METHODS

The study consisted of the following phases: (1) operationalization of a broad range of potential diagnostic criteria for CBSD, (2) two iterative rounds of data collection using the Delphi method, where consensus of potential diagnostic criteria for CBSD was reached by an international expert panel, and (3) interpretation of findings taking into account the degree of certainty amongst experts regarding their responses.

RESULTS

With respect to diagnostic criteria, there was clear expert consensus about inclusion of the persistent and recurrent experience of (a) intrusive and/or irresistible urges and/or impulses and/or cravings and/or preoccupations for buying/shopping; (b) diminished control over buying/shopping; (c) excessive purchasing of items without utilizing them for their intended purposes, (d) use of buying-shopping to regulate internal states; (e) negative consequences and impairment in important areas of functioning due to buying/shopping; (f) emotional and cognitive symptoms upon cessation of excessive buying/shopping; and (g) maintenance or escalation of dysfunctional buying/shopping behaviors despite negative consequences. Furthermore, support was found for a specifier related to the presence of excessive hoarding of purchased items.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed diagnostic criteria can be used as the basis for the development of diagnostic interviews and measures of CBSD severity.

Core principles of evolutionary medicine: A Delphi study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Evolutionary medicine is a rapidly growing field that uses the principles of evolutionary biology to better understand, prevent and treat disease, and that uses studies of disease to advance basic knowledge in evolutionary biology. Over-arching principles of evolutionary medicine have been described in publications, but our study is the first to systematically elicit core principles from a diverse panel of experts in evolutionary medicine. These principles should be useful to advance recent recommendations made by The Association of American Medical Colleges and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute to make evolutionary thinking a core competency for pre-medical education.

METHODOLOGY

The Delphi method was used to elicit and validate a list of core principles for evolutionary medicine. The study included four surveys administered in sequence to 56 expert panelists. The initial open-ended survey created a list of possible core principles; the three subsequent surveys winnowed the list and assessed the accuracy and importance of each principle.

RESULTS

Fourteen core principles elicited at least 80% of the panelists to agree or strongly agree that they were important core principles for evolutionary medicine. These principles over-lapped with concepts discussed in other articles discussing key concepts in evolutionary medicine.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This set of core principles will be helpful for researchers and instructors in evolutionary medicine. We recommend that evolutionary medicine instructors use the list of core principles to construct learning goals. Evolutionary medicine is a young field, so this list of core principles will likely change as the field develops further.

Improving tumor budding reporting in colorectal cancer: a Delphi consensus study

Tumor budding is a long-established independent adverse prognostic marker in colorectal cancer, yet methods for its assessment have varied widely. In an effort to standardize its reporting, a group of experts met in Bern, Switzerland, in 2016 to reach consensus on a single, international, evidence-based method for tumor budding assessment and reporting (International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference [ITBCC]). Tumor budding assessment using the ITBCC criteria has been validated in large cohorts of cancer patients and incorporated into several international colorectal cancer pathology and clinical guidelines. With the wider reporting of tumor budding, new issues have emerged that require further clarification. To better inform researchers and health-care professionals on these issues, an international group of experts in gastrointestinal pathology participated in a modified Delphi process to generate consensus and highlight areas requiring further research. This effort serves to re-affirm the importance of tumor budding in colorectal cancer and support its continued use in routine clinical practice.

Promoting good policy for leadership and governance of health related rehabilitation: a realist synthesis

Background

Good governance may result in strengthened performance of a health system. Coherent policies are essential for good health system governance. The overall aim of this research is to provide the best available scientific evidence on principles of good policy related leadership and governance of health related rehabilitation services in less resourced settings. This research was also conducted to support development of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guidelines on health related rehabilitation.

Methods

An innovative study design was used, comprising two methods: a systematic search and realist synthesis of literature, and a Delphi survey of expert stakeholders to refine and triangulate findings from the realist synthesis. In accordance with Pawson and Tilley’s approach to realist synthesis, we identified context mechanism outcome pattern configurations (CMOCs) from the literature. Subsequently, these CMOCs were developed into statements for the Delphi survey, whereby 18 expert stakeholders refined these statements to achieve consensus on recommendations for policy related governance of health related rehabilitation.

Results

Several broad principles emerged throughout formulation of recommendations: participation of persons with disabilities in policy processes to improve programme responsiveness, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability, and to strengthen service-user self-determination and satisfaction; collection of disaggregated disability statistics to support political momentum, decision-making of policymakers, evaluation, accountability, and equitable allocation of resources; explicit promotion in policies of access to services for all subgroups of persons with disabilities and service-users to support equitable and accessible services; robust inter-sectoral coordination to cultivate coherent mandates across governmental departments regarding service provision; and ‘institutionalizing’ programmes by aligning them with preexisting Ministerial models of healthcare to support programme sustainability.

Conclusions

Alongside national policymakers, our policy recommendations are relevant for several stakeholders, including service providers and service-users. This research aims to provide broad policy recommendations, rather than a strict formula, in acknowledgement of contextual diversity and complexity. Accordingly, our study proposes general principles regarding optimal policy related governance of health related rehabilitation in less resourced settings, which may be valuable across diverse health systems and contexts.

Protocol for the development of a core domain set for hidradenitis suppurativa trial outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should have well-defined primary and secondary outcomes to answer questions generated by the main hypotheses. However, for the chronic, inflammatory skin disease hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), the reported outcome measures are numerous and diverse. A recent systematic review found a total of 30 outcome measure instruments in 12 RCTs. This use of a broad range of outcome measures can increase difficulties in interpretation and comparison of results and may potentially obstruct appropriate evidence synthesis by causing reporting bias. One strategy for dealing with these problems is to develop a core outcome set (COS). A COS is a list of outcomes that are meant as mandatory and should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. The aim of this study is to develop a COS for the management of HS.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

An international steering group of researchers, clinicians and a patient research partner will guide the COS development. 6 stakeholder groups are involved: patients, dermatologists, surgeons, nurses, industry representatives and drug regulatory authorities. A 1:1 ratio of patients:healthcare professionals is aimed for. The initial list of candidate items will be obtained by combining three data sets: (1) a systematic review of the literature, (2) US and Danish qualitative interview studies involving patients with HS and (3) an online healthcare professional (HCP) item generation survey. To reach consensus on the COS, 4 anonymous online Delphi rounds are then planned together with 2 face-to-face consensus meetings (1 in Europe and 1 in the USA) to ensure global representation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be performed according to the Helsinki declaration. All results from the study, including inconclusive or negative results, will be published in peer-reviewed indexed journals. The study will involve different stakeholder groups to ensure that the developed COS will be suitable and well accepted.

Point-of-care ultrasound for general practitioners: a systematic needs assessment

Objective: The aim of the study was to achieve consensus among a group of ultrasound proficient general practitioners (GPs) from Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland on which ultrasound scanning modalities and ultrasound-guided procedures are essential to GPs in their daily work for the purpose of including them in a basic ultrasound curriculum.Design: The Delphi methodology was used to obtain consensus.Subjects: Sixty Scandinavian GPs with more than two years of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) experience were invited to join the Delphi expert panel.Main outcome measures: In the first Delphi round each member of the panel was asked to produce a list of scanning modalities and procedures which they found relevant to include in a basic ultrasound curriculum. In Delphi round two, these suggestions were presented to the entire panel who assessed whether they found them essential in their daily work. Items not reaching consensus in round two, were presented to the panel in a third and final round. Items reaching more than 67% agreement were included.Results: Forty-five GPs were included in the study and 41 GPs completed all rounds. Agreement was obtained on 30 scanning modalities and procedures primarily within the musculoskeletal (8), abdominal (5), obstetric (5) and soft tissue (3) diagnostic areas. Four ultrasound-guided procedures were also agreed upon.Conclusion: A prioritized list of 30 scanning modalities and procedures was agreed upon by a group of ultrasound proficient GPs. This list could serve as a guideline when planning future POCUS educational activities for GPs.Key pointsPoint-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is increasingly being used by general practitioners (GPs), but little is known about which ultrasound applications are most used.We performed a systematic needs assessment among a group of ultrasound proficient GPs using the Delphi methodology for the purpose of establishing a basic POCUS curriculum.The process resulted in a prioritized list of 30 scanning modalities and ultrasound guided procedures.Our study provides the basis for an evidence-based basic POCUS curriculum for GPs.

Self-management behaviors to reduce exacerbation impact in COPD patients: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about which self-management behaviors have the highest potential to influence exacerbation impact in COPD patients. We aimed to reach expert consensus on the most relevant set of self-management behaviors that can be targeted and influenced to maximize reduction of exacerbation impact.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 2-round Delphi study was performed using online surveys to rate the relevance and feasibility of predetermined self-management behaviors identified by literature and expert opinion. Descriptive statistics and qualitative analyses were used.

RESULTS

An international expert panel reached consensus on 17 self-management behaviors focusing on: stable phase (n=5): pharmacotherapy, vaccination, physical activity, avoiding stimuli and smoking cessation; periods of symptom deterioration (n=1): early detection; during an exacerbation (n=5): early detection, health care contact, self-treatment, managing stress/anxiety and physical activity; during recovery (n=4): completing treatment, managing stress/anxiety, physical activity and exercise training; and after recovery (n=2): awareness for recurrent exacerbations and restart of pulmonary rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

This study has provided insight into expert opinion on the most relevant and feasible self-management behaviors that can be targeted and influenced before, during and after an exacerbation to exert the highest magnitude of influence on the impact of exacerbations. Future research should focus at developing more comprehensive patient-tailored interventions supporting patients in these exacerbation-related self-management behaviors.

Expert consensus regarding drivers of antimicrobial stewardship in companion animal veterinary practice: a Delphi study

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global challenge facing both human and animal healthcare professionals; an effective response to this threat requires a 'One-Health' approach to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) to preserve important antibiotics for urgent clinical need. However, understanding of barriers and enablers to effective AMS behaviour in companion animal veterinary practice is currently limited. We conducted a Delphi study of 16 nationally recognised experts from UK-based veterinary policymakers, university academics and leaders of professional bodies. This Delphi study sought to identify veterinary behaviours which experts believe contribute to AMR and form vital aspects of AMS. Analysis of Delphi findings indicated a perceived hierarchy of behaviours, the most influential being antibiotic prescribing behaviours and interactions with clients. Other veterinary behaviours perceived as being important related to interactions with veterinary colleagues; infection control practices; and the use of diagnostic tests to confirm infection. Key barriers and enablers to AMS within each of these behavioural domains were identified. Specific interventions to address important barriers and enablers are recommended. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to establish expert consensus at a national level about which 'behaviours' (aspects of veterinarian practice) should be targeted in relation to AMR and AMS in companion animal veterinary practice.

The Definition of Paramedicine: An International Delphi Study

Introduction

Although paramedicine is an integral element of healthcare systems, there is a lack of universal consensus on its definition. This study aimed to derive a global consensus definition of paramedicine.

Methods

Key attributes pertaining to paramedicine were identified from existing definitions within the literature. Utilising text analysis, common attribute themes were identified and six initial domains were developed. These domains formed the basis for a four-round Delphi study with a panel of 58 global experts within paramedicine to develop an international consensus definition.

Results

Response rates across the study varied from 96.6% (round 1) to 63.8% (round 4). Participant feedback on appropriate attributes to include in the definition reflected the high level of specialized clinical care inherent within paramedicine, and its status as an essential element of healthcare systems. In addition, the results highlighted the extensive range of paramedicine capabilities and roles, and the diverse environments within which paramedics work.

Conclusion

Delphi methodology was utilized to develop a global consensus definition of paramedicine. This definition is as follows: paramedicine is a domain of practice and health profession that specialises across a range of settings including, but not limited to, emergency and primary care. Paramedics work in a variety of clinical settings such as emergency medical services, ambulance services, hospitals and clinics as well as non-clinical roles, such as education, leadership, public health and research. Paramedics possess complex knowledge and skills, a broad scope of practice and are an essential part of the healthcare system. Depending on location, paramedics may practice under medical direction or independently, often in unscheduled, unpredictable or dynamic settings. We believe that the generation and provision of this consensus definition is essential to enable the further development and maturation of the discipline of paramedicine.

Metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty and its influence on implant choice: a delphi consensus study amongst orthopaedic arthroplasty surgeons

Purpose

This study was undertaken to obtain a consensus amongst joint arthroplasty experts with regards to metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty and the choice of implant in patients with potential metal allergy.

Materials and Methods

A web based Delphi consensus study was used including orthopaedic surgeons that had previously published on the topic of knee, hip or shoulder arthroplasty. Two rounds of questionnaires were sent via electronic mail. Consensus was considered reached if agreement was 60% or higher.

Results

Eighteen surgeons responded to the first and 17 to the second round of questionnaires. There was consensus that patients having metal arthroplasty surgery should not be routinely questioned about metal allergy prior to surgery. There was consensus that patch testing is not necessary even if metal allergy is suspected. Most respondents agreed in proceeding with cobalt chromium or stainless steel implant in patients suspected of metal allergy regardless of the results of cutaneous patch testing.

Conclusions

This consensus study suggests that routine metal allergy screening prior to joint arthroplasty is not essential. The use of traditional cobalt chromium/stainless steel implants is recommended regardless of the patient's metal allergy status based on expert opinion through this study.