An Interdisciplinary Definition of Pornography: Results from a Global Delphi Panel.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: McKee A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7058557 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An Interdisciplinary Definition of Pornography: Results from a Global Delphi Panel.
McKee Alan A Byron Paul P Litsou Katerina K Ingham Roger R
Archives of sexual behavior 20190923 3
In interdisciplinary investigations into the relationships between pornography and its audiences, the issue of how to define the object of study is more complex than in studies situated within a single discipline. A Delphi panel of 38 leading pornography researchers from a wide range of disciplines was asked about various topics, including the definition of pornography. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of two rounds of survey responses suggested two different and-at first sight-incompatible ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe 2016 Presidential Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities identified systematic review of all cases of near-fatal child maltreatment as a necessary step towards prevention of child maltreatment fatalities. A critical barrier to adoption of this recommendation is the lack of a standard definition of "near-fatality" in the context of suspected child maltreatment.ObjectiveTo develop a consensus definition of near-fatal child maltreatment to be used in practice, policy, and research.Participants and settingA multidisciplinary expert panel of 23 individuals from across the U.S. including child abuse pediatricians, pediatric intensivists, pediatric emergency medicine physicians, child welfare administrators, child welfare researchers, and child injury/fatality researchers.MethodsA modified Delphi process reflecting an iterative process of 3 rounds of surveys of expert opinion, statistical summary of survey response, and feedback of summary statistics. Consensus was defined as 75 % of panelists ranking an element as required (≥80 on a scale of 0-100) to meet a definition of near-fatality (75th% threshold).ResultsExperts defined near-fatal child maltreatment as life-threatening cardiopulmonary dysfunction directly attributable to suspected abuse or neglect as evidenced by (a) respiratory insufficiency/failure requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation, (b) respiratory insufficiency/failure requiring medications to reverse effects of toxic ingestion, or (c) cardiac arrhythmia with/without cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).ConclusionsA consensus definition of near-fatal child maltreatment should be introduced in child protective services processes and in child fatality/near-fatality reviews to improve our ability to identify, review, and respond to trends in near-fatal child maltreatment at local, regional, and national levels.
| S-EPMC7856008 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Evidence-based smoking cessation guidelines recommend nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion SR and varenicline as first-line therapy in combination with behavioural interventions. However, there are limited data to guide clinicians in recommending one form over another, using combinations, or matching individual smokers to particular forms.To develop decision rules for clinicians to guide differential prescribing practices and tailoring of pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation.A Delphi approach was used to build consensus among a panel of 37 international experts from various health disciplines. Through an iterative process, panellists responded to three rounds of questionnaires. Participants identified and ranked "best practices" used by them to tailor pharmacotherapy to aid smoking cessation. An independent panel of 10 experts provided cross-validation of findings.There was a 100% response rate to all three rounds. A high level of consensus was achieved in determining the most important priorities: (1) factors to consider in prescribing pharmacotherapy: evidence, patient preference, patient experience; (2) combinations based on: failed attempt with monotherapy, patients with breakthrough cravings, level of tobacco dependence; (3) specific combinations, main categories: (a) two or more forms of NRT, (b) bupropion + form of NRT; (4) specific combinations, subcategories: (1a) patch + gum, (1b) patch + inhaler, (1c) patch + lozenge; (2a) bupropion + patch, (2b) bupropion + gum; (5) impact of comorbidities on selection of pharmacotherapy: contraindications, specific pharmacotherapy useful for certain comorbidities, dual purpose medications; (6) frequency of monitoring determined by patient needs and type of pharmacotherapy.An algorithm and guide were developed to assist clinicians in prescribing pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation. There appears to be good justification for "off-label" use such as higher doses of NRT or combination therapy in certain circumstances. This practical tool reflects best evidence to date of experts in tobacco cessation.
| S-EPMC2614465 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to generate prioritised goals for oral health services for people with disabilities as a first step in meeting the need for evidence based oral health services for people with disabilities in Ireland.MethodsThe study used a three round modified e-Delphi method, involving dental service professionals and people with disabilities or their representatives, in Ireland. Three rounds were completed online using SurveyMonkey. Round 1 asked: "List what you think dental services for people with disabilities in Ireland should be like." Items for subsequent rounds were generated from responses to Round 1. Round 2 and Round 3 used 5 point Likert scales to rank these items by priority: from No Priority (1) to Top Priority (5). Consensus was achieved on each item where at least 80% of respondents considered an item either High or Top Priority. A consensus meeting concluded the process.ResultsSixty-one panelists started and 48 completed the survey. The Delphi panel agreed on level of priority for 69 items and generated 16 consensus statements. These statements covered a range of topics such as access to care, availability of information and training, quality of care, dental treatment and cost. A recurrent theme relating to the appropriateness of care to individual need arose across topics suggesting a need to match service delivery according to the individual's needs, wants and expectations rather than the disability type/diagnosis based service which predominates today.ConclusionsThis process produced a list of prioritised goals for dental services for people with disabilities. This creates a foundation for building evidence-based service models for people with disabilities in Ireland.
| S-EPMC4242628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesNursing homes became epicenters of COVID-19 in the spring of 2020. Due to the substantial case fatality rates within congregate settings, federal agencies recommended restrictions to family visits. Six months into the COVID-19 pandemic, these largely remain in place. The objective of this study was to generate consensus guidance statements focusing on essential family caregivers and visitors.DesignA modified 2-step Delphi process was used to generate consensus statements.Setting and participantsThe Delphi panel consisted of 21 US and Canadian post-acute and long-term care experts in clinical medicine, administration, and patient care advocacy.MethodsState and federal reopening statements were collected in June 2020 and the panel voted on these using a 3-point Likert scale with consensus defined as ≥80% of panel members voting "Agree." The consensus statements then informed development of the visitor guidance statements.ResultsThe Delphi process yielded 77 consensus statements. Regarding visitor guidance, the panel made 5 strong recommendations: (1) maintain strong infection prevention and control precautions, (2) facilitate indoor and outdoor visits, (3) allow limited physical contact with appropriate precautions, (4) assess individual residents' care preferences and level of risk tolerance, and (5) dedicate an essential caregiver and extend the definition of compassionate care visits to include care that promotes psychosocial well-being of residents.Conclusions and implicationsThe COVID-19 pandemic has seen substantial regulatory changes without strong consideration of the impact on residents. In the absence of timely and rigorous research, the involvement of clinicians and patient care advocates is important to help create the balance between individual resident preferences and the health of the collective. The results of this evidence-based Delphi process will help guide policy decisions as well as inform future research.
| S-EPMC7539058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFewer than half of the US population has an advance healthcare directive. Hospitalizations offer a key opportunity for clinicians to engage patients in advance care planning (ACP) conversations. Guidelines suggest screening for the presence of "serious illness" but do not further specify how to prioritize the 12.4 million patients hospitalized each year.ObjectiveTo establish a normative standard for prioritizing hospitalized patients for ACP conversations.Design and settingA modified Delphi study, with three iterative rounds of online surveys.ParticipantsMulti-disciplinary group of US-based clinicians with research and practical expertise in ACP.Main measuresIndirect and direct elicitation of short-term and 1-year risk of mortality that prompt experts to prioritize ACP conversations for hospitalized adults.Main resultsFifty-seven of 108 (52%) candidate panelists completed round 1, and 47 completed rounds 2 and 3. Panelists were primarily physicians (84%), with significant experience (mean years 23 [SD 9.8]), who either taught (55%) and/or performed research about ACP (55%). In round 1, > 70% of panelists agreed that all hospitalized adults ≥ 65 years should have an ACP conversation before discharge, but disagreed about the timing and content of the conversation. By round 3, > 70% of participants agreed that patients with either high (> 10%) short-term or high (≥ 34%) 1-year risk of mortality should have a goals of care conversation (i.e., focused on preferences for near-term treatment), while patients with low (≤ 10%) short-term and low (< 19%) 1-year risk of mortality warranted an ACP conversation (i.e., focused on preferences for future care) before discharge.LimitationsUse of case vignettes to elicit clinician judgment; response rate.ConclusionsPanelists agreed that clinicians should have an ACP conversation with all hospitalized adults over 65 years in an ACP conversation, adjusting the content and timing of the conversation conditional on the patient's risk of short-term and 1-year mortality.
| S-EPMC7859119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Until recently, the belief that adequate pain management was not achievable while patients remained on buprenorphine was the impetus for the perioperative discontinuation of buprenorphine. We aimed to use an expert consensus Delphi-based survey technique to 1) specify the need for perioperative guidelines in this context and 2) offer a set of recommendations for the perioperative management of these patients. The major recommendation of this practice advisory is to continue buprenorphine therapy in the perioperative period. It is rarely appropriate to reduce the buprenorphine dose irrespective of indication or formulation. If analgesia is inadequate after optimisation of adjunct analgesic therapies, we recommend initiating a full mu agonist while continuing buprenorphine at some dose. The panel believes that before operation, physicians must distinguish between buprenorphine use for chronic pain (weaning/conversion from long-term high-dose opioids) and opioid use disorder (OUD) as the primary indication for buprenorphine therapy. Patients should ideally be discharged on buprenorphine, although not necessarily at their preoperative dose. Depending on analgesic requirements, they may be discharged on a full mu agonist. Overall, long-term buprenorphine treatment retention and harm reduction must be considered during the perioperative period when OUD is a primary diagnosis. The authors recognise that inter-patient variability will require some individualisation of clinical practice advisories. Clinical practice advisories are largely based on lower classes of evidence (level 4, level 5). Further research is required in order to implement meaningful changes in practitioner behaviour for this patient group.
| S-EPMC6676043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify priorities for improving healthcare organization management of patient access to primary care based on prior evidence and a stakeholder panel. BACKGROUND:Studies on healthcare access show its importance for ensuring population health. Few studies show how healthcare organizations can improve access. METHODS:We conducted a modified Delphi stakeholder panel anchored by a systematic review. Panelists (N = 20) represented diverse stakeholder groups including patients, providers, policy makers, purchasers, and payers of healthcare services, predominantly from the Veterans Health Administration. A pre-panel survey addressed over 80 aspects of healthcare organization management of access, including defining access management. Panelists discussed survey-based ratings during a 2-day in-person meeting and re-voted afterward. A second panel process focused on each final priority and developed recommendations and suggestions for implementation. RESULTS:The panel achieved consensus on definitions of optimal access and access management on eight urgent and important priorities for guiding access management improvement, and on 1-3 recommendations per priority. Each recommendation is supported by referenced, panel-approved suggestions for implementation. Priorities address two organizational structure targets (interdisciplinary primary care site leadership; clearly identified group practice management structure); four process improvements (patient telephone access management; contingency staffing; nurse management of demand through care coordination; proactive demand management by optimizing provider visit schedules), and two outcomes (quality of patients' experiences of access; provider and staff morale). Recommendations and suggestions for implementation, including literature references, are summarized in a panelist-approved, ready-to-use tool. CONCLUSIONS:A stakeholder panel informed by a pre-panel systematic review identified eight action-oriented priorities for improving access and recommendations for implementing each priority. The resulting tool is suitable for guiding the VA and other integrated healthcare delivery organizations in assessing and initiating improvements in access management, and for supporting continued research.
| S-EPMC7018673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aimed to administer a Delphi panel survey and provide evidence for the development of a psychological intervention protocol for use after disasters in South Korea.A three-round Delphi survey was conducted. In all rounds, respondents answered open- or closed-ended questions regarding their views on i) the concept of disaster, ii) evaluation, iii) intervention, and iv) considerations in a disaster. Data from Round 1 were subjected to content analysis. In Round 2, items with content validity ratios (CVRs) greater than 0.49 were included, and in Round 3, items with a CVR?0.38 were accepted.The response rates for the Delphi survey were high: 83% (n = 15, Round 1), 80% (n = 16, Round 2), and 86% (n = 24, Round 3). The data collected during this survey showed a need for a support system for children; for preventive strategies, including disaster readiness plans; for the protection of children's safety; and for the development of post-disaster psychosocial care.The panel experts reached a consensus regarding the steps they considered critical in post-disaster evaluation and intervention. The findings suggest a unified model for advancing the development of the Korean version of an intervention protocol for children and adolescents exposed to traumatic events.
| S-EPMC5875888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe explore attributes, traits, background, skills, and behavioral factors important to top clinical performance in emergency medicine (EM) residency.MethodsWe used a two-step process-an ideation survey with the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors and a modified Delphi technique-to identify: 1) factors important to top performance, 2) preresidency factors that predict it, and 3) the best ways to measure it. In the Delphi, six expert educators in emergency care assessed the presence of the factors from the ideation survey results in their top clinical performers. Consensus on important factors that were exemplified in >60% of top performers were retained in three Delphi rounds as well as predictors and measures of top performance.ResultsThe ideation survey generated 81 responses with ideas for each factor. These were combined into 89 separate factors in seven categories: attributes, personal traits, emergency department (ED)-specific skills and behaviors, general skill set, background, preresidency predictors, and ways to measure top performance. After three Delphi rounds, the panel achieved consensus on 20 factors important to top clinical performance. This included two attributes, seven traits, one general skill set, and 10 ED-specific skills and behaviors. Interview performance was considered the sole important preresidency predictor and clinical competency committee results the sole important measure of top performance.ConclusionOur expert panel identified 20 factors important to top clinical performance in EM residency. Future work is needed to further explore how individuals learn and develop these factors.
| S-EPMC6194040 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConducted as part of the Driving Reinvestment in Research and Development and Responsible Antibiotic Use (DRIVE-AB) project, this study aimed to identify key elements for a global definition of responsible antibiotic use based on diverse stakeholder input.MethodsA three-step RAND-modified Delphi method was applied. First, a systematic review of antibiotic stewardship literature and relevant organization web sites identified definitions and synonyms of responsible use. Identified elements of definitions were presented by questionnaire to a multidisciplinary international stakeholder panel for appraisal of their relevance. Finally, questionnaire results were discussed in a consensus meeting.ResultsThe systematic review and the web site search identified 17 synonyms (e.g. appropriate, correct) and 22 potential elements to include in a definition of responsible use. Elements were grouped into patient-level (e.g. Indication, Documentation) or societal-level elements (e.g. Education, Future Effectiveness). Forty-eight stakeholders with diverse backgrounds [medical community, public health, patients, antibiotic research and development (R&D), regulators, governments] from 18 countries across all continents participated in the questionnaire. Based on relevance scores, 21 elements were retained, 9 were rephrased and 1 was added. Together, the 22 elements and associated best-practice descriptions comprise an exhaustive list of elements to be considered when defining responsible use.ConclusionsCombination of concepts from the literature and stakeholder opinion led to an international multidisciplinary consensus on a global definition of responsible antibiotic use. The widely diverging perspectives of stakeholders providing input should ensure the comprehensiveness and relevance of the definition for both individual patients and society. An aspirational goal would be to address all elements.
| S-EPMC5989615 | biostudies-literature