A Delphi Survey and Analysis of Expert Perspectives on One Health in Australia.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Degeling C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7087667 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Delphi Survey and Analysis of Expert Perspectives on One Health in Australia.
Degeling Chris C Johnson Jane J Ward Michael M Wilson Andrew A Gilbert Gwendolyn G
EcoHealth 20170822 4
One Health (OH) is an interdisciplinary approach aiming to achieve optimal health for humans, animals and their environments. Case reports and systematic reviews of success are emerging; however, discussion of barriers and enablers of cross-sectoral collaboration are rare. A four-phase mixed-method Delphi survey of Australian human and animal health practitioners and policymakers (n = 52) explored areas of consensus and disagreement over: (1) the operational definition of OH; (2) potential for c ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesHealth economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials.MethodsA list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus.Results62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items.ConclusionsVia expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.
| S-EPMC8024512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent research evidence challenges clinical decision-making when acupuncture is taken into consideration in the treatment of cognitive impairment (CI). Aiming to provide some viable recommendations for acupuncture practitioners in dealing with actual clinic issues, an expert consensus study was conducted.MethodsA clinical question investigation among 47 acupuncturists yielded 24 initial items. Subsequently, systematic reviews on acupuncture for CI were searched within three online databases. A panel of 30 authoritative experts were requested to respond with agreement, neutrality, or disagreement for each item. Consensus establishment was defined as the percentage of agreement on a given item >80%.ResultsFollowing a 2-round Delphi survey, there were 21 items reaching consensus and three items resulting in no consensus; of which 10 items reached 90∼100% agreement, and 80∼90% expert agreement was achieved for 11 items. These items could be roughly categorized into six domains: (1) therapeutic effects of acupuncture, (2) therapeutic principles, (3) acupoint selection and combination, (4) acupuncture parameters, (5) considerable combined therapies, and (6) possible adverse events.ConclusionWithout ready-made guidelines, this expert consensus may be conducive to guide acupuncturists in implementing clinical acupuncture practice for CI. Moreover, given the lack of high-quality research evidence and plenty of unresolved clinical issues in this field, it is of necessity to carry out more studies to better clarify the treatment algorithm.
| S-EPMC7732673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReal-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are playing increasingly important roles in clinical research and health care decision-making. To leverage RWD and generate reliable RWE, data should be well defined and structured in a way that is semantically interoperable and consistent across stakeholders. The adoption of data standards is one of the cornerstones supporting high-quality evidence for the development of clinical medicine and therapeutics. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) data standards are mature, globally recognized, and heavily used by the pharmaceutical industry for regulatory submissions. The CDISC RWD Connect Initiative aims to better understand the barriers to implementing CDISC standards for RWD and to identify the tools and guidance needed to more easily implement them.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to understand the barriers to implementing CDISC standards for RWD and to identify the tools and guidance that may be needed to implement CDISC standards more easily for this purpose.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative Delphi survey involving an expert advisory board with multiple key stakeholders, with 3 rounds of input and review.ResultsOverall, 66 experts participated in round 1, 56 in round 2, and 49 in round 3 of the Delphi survey. Their inputs were collected and analyzed, culminating in group statements. It was widely agreed that the standardization of RWD is highly necessary, and the primary focus should be on its ability to improve data sharing and the quality of RWE. The priorities for RWD standardization included electronic health records, such as data shared using Health Level 7 Fast Health care Interoperability Resources (FHIR), and the data stemming from observational studies. With different standardization efforts already underway in these areas, a gap analysis should be performed to identify the areas where synergies and efficiencies are possible and then collaborate with stakeholders to create or extend existing mappings between CDISC and other standards, controlled terminologies, and models to represent data originating across different sources.ConclusionsThere are many ongoing data standardization efforts around human health data-related activities, each with different definitions, levels of granularity, and purpose. Among these, CDISC has been successful in standardizing clinical trial-based data for regulation worldwide. However, the complexity of the CDISC standards and the fact that they were developed for different purposes, combined with the lack of awareness and incentives to use a new standard and insufficient training and implementation support, are significant barriers to setting up the use of CDISC standards for RWD. The collection and dissemination of use cases, development of tools and support systems for the RWD community, and collaboration with other standards development organizations are potential steps forward. Using CDISC will help link clinical trial data and RWD and promote innovation in health data science.
| S-EPMC8832264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResource use measurement by patient recall is characterized by inconsistent methods and a lack of validation. A validated standardized resource use measure could increase data quality, improve comparability between studies, and reduce research burden.ObjectivesTo identify a minimum set of core resource use items that should be included in a standardized adult instrument for UK health economic evaluation from a provider perspective.MethodsHealth economists with experience of UK-based economic evaluations were recruited to participate in an electronic Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate 60 resource use items (e.g., medication names) on a scale of 1 to 9 according to the importance of the item in a generic context. Items considered less important according to predefined consensus criteria were dropped and a second survey was developed. In the second round, respondents received the median score and their own score from round 1 for each item alongside summarized comments and were asked to rerate items. A final project team meeting was held to determine the recommended core set.ResultsForty-five participants completed round 1. Twenty-six items were considered less important and were dropped, 34 items were retained for the second round, and no new items were added. Forty-two respondents (93.3%) completed round 2, and greater consensus was observed. After the final meeting, 10 core items were selected, with further items identified as suitable for "bolt-on" questionnaire modules.ConclusionsThe consensus on 10 items considered important in a generic context suggests that a standardized instrument for core resource use items is feasible.
| S-EPMC6021557 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTropical infectious diseases are called neglected, because they are, inter alia, characterized by an R&D deficit. A similar deficit exists for rare (orphan) diseases which neither promise a sufficient return on R&D investment. To encourage the development of treatments for rare diseases, orphan drug acts were created which contain financial and non-financial incentives for the pharmaceutical industry. Similar instruments aimed exclusively at neglected diseases do not yet exist. Proposals for a regulatory approach to promote R&D for neglected diseases include the application of selected orphan drug incentives, or the implementation of a Medical Research and Development Treaty (MRDT) with national funding obligations for medical R&D. We compiled and analyzed experts' opinions on causes for the treatment deficit for neglected diseases and on desirable and feasible measures to promote neglected disease R&D. Hereby, the focus was on mechanisms contained in orphan drug regulations and in the Medical Research and Development Treaty draft (Discussion draft 4, 2005). Lastly, we solicited experts' opinions on the desirability and feasibility of a regulatory instrument to foster R&D for neglected diseases.MethodsAn international online-Delphi survey was conducted with 117 (first round) and 56 (second round) experts of different professional backgrounds and professional affiliations who formulated and ranked causes and solutions related to the treatment deficit for neglected diseases.ResultsIn both rounds of survey, the majority of the participating experts (88.4% first round, 86.8% second round) advocated the development of a regulatory instrument to promote R&D for neglected diseases. Most experts (77.9% first round, 79.3% second round) also considered this to be a feasible option. With the exception of market exclusivity, which was viewed critically, key provisions contained in orphan drug regulations were judged favorably also for neglected diseases. A majority (87.1% first round, 77.2% second round) supported national funding obligations for neglected diseases which are proposed by the Medical Research and Development Treaty draft.ConclusionsWhile not all features of orphan drug regulations and of the MRDT draft received equal support, the view was expressed that a regulatory instrument would be a desirable and feasible measure to promote R&D for neglected diseases.
| S-EPMC3228726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Early childhood is a critical stage for nutrition promotion, and childcare settings have the potential for wide-reaching impact on food intake. There are currently no Australian national guidelines for childcare food provision, and the comparability of existing guidelines across jurisdictions is unknown. This project aimed to map and compare childcare food provision guidelines and to explore perspectives amongst early childhood nutrition experts for alignment of jurisdictional childcare food provision guidelines with the Australian Dietary Guidelines (ADG). A desktop review was conducted and formed the basis of an online survey. A national convenience sample of childhood nutrition experts was surveyed. Existing guideline recommendations for food group serving quantities were similar across jurisdictions but contained many minor differences. Of the 49 survey respondents, most (84-100%) agreed with aligning food group provision recommendations to provide at least 50% of the recommended ADG serves for children. Most (94%) agreed that discretionary foods should be offered less than once per month or never. Jurisdictional childcare food provision guidelines do not currently align, raising challenges for national accreditation and the provision of support and resources for services across jurisdictions. Childhood nutrition experts support national alignment of food provision guidelines with the ADG.
| S-EPMC7558074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The successful development of an economic model for the evaluation of future Alzheimer's disease (AD) interventions is critical to accurately inform policy makers and payers. As our understanding of AD expands, this becomes an increasingly complex and challenging goal. Advances in diagnostic techniques for AD and the prospect of disease-modifying treatments raise an urgent need to define specifications for future economic models and to ensure that the necessary data to populate them are available. This Perspective article provides expert opinions from health economists and governmental agency representatives on how future economic models for AD might be structured, validated, and reported. We aim to stimulate much-needed discussion about the detailed specification of future health economic models for AD.
| S-EPMC9597379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study aims to describe a local community expert's perspective on the identification of and access to children's health assets and to gather proposals to promote children's health and well-being within their community. The health asset approach is essential for health promotion, and there is evidence of its benefits to individuals' or communities' health when this approach is observed. Children's health assets are gaining increasing interest, but the literature that captures the perception of professionals working with children is scarce. Qualitative research designed with Delphi methodology was carried out with the participation of 25 professionals working in a neighbourhood with children and families. The participants stated that this neighbourhood was a good environment for the healthy and happy growth of children but pointed out that there were inequities. They emphasised the importance of economic and physical security and feeling loved. The absolute best aspects of the neighbourhood according to these experts were its support networks, mutual help, educational and health services, and green spaces, and the most deficient aspects were the possibility of a hopeful future and emotional support within the family unit. Poverty and/or the scarcity of economic resources were identified as the main barriers to accessing health assets. Special difficulties in access to health for migrant and Roma children were also identified. The panel of experts made concrete action proposals. It was recommended to support resources and services that already exist in their community. The experts prioritised work with families, education, working in conjunction with vulnerable groups, community participation, and networking.
| S-EPMC10930817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIt has been suggested that the sequelae of trauma are under-recognized in youth on the autism spectrum. We aimed to generate expert consensus regarding important trauma indicators, including but not limited to traumatic stress symptoms, in autistic youth.MethodsWe recruited 72 experts in autism and/or childhood trauma. Via a 2-round Delphi survey, experts commented on and rated the importance of 48 potential indicators, drawn from PTSD criteria and a broader literature on traumatic sequelae in autism. A revised list of 51 indicators, 18 clinical guidelines developed from expert comments, and summaries of expert qualifications and ratings from Round 1 were submitted to a second round (n = 66; 92% retention) of expert review and rating.ResultsTwenty-two indicators reached consensus (>75% round 2 endorsement). Many, but not all, reflected PTSD criteria, including intrusions (e.g., trauma re-enactments in perseverative play/speech), avoidance of trauma-reminders, and negative alterations in mood/cognition (e.g., diminished interest in activities) and in arousal/reactivity (e.g., exaggerated startle). Experts also identified increased reliance on others, adaptive and language regressions, self-injurious behavior, and non-suicidal self-injury as important indicators. Consensus guidelines emphasized the need for tailored measures, developmentally informed criteria, and multiple informants to increase diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionsExpert consensus emphasizes and informs a need for tailored diagnostic guidelines and measures to more sensitively assess traumatic reactions in autistic youth.
| S-EPMC10368297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPresent models and definitions of patient-centeredness revealed a lack of conceptual clarity. Based on a prior systematic literature review, we developed an integrative model with 15 dimensions of patient-centeredness. The aims of this study were to 1) validate, and 2) prioritize these dimensions.MethodA two-round web-based Delphi study was conducted. 297 international experts were invited to participate. In round one they were asked to 1) give an individual rating on a nine-point-scale on relevance and clarity of the dimensions, 2) add missing dimensions, and 3) prioritize the dimensions. In round two, experts received feedback about the results of round one and were asked to reflect and re-rate their own results. The cut-off for the validation of a dimension was a median < 7 on one of the criteria.Results105 experts participated in round one and 71 in round two. In round one, one new dimension was suggested and included for discussion in round two. In round two, this dimension did not reach sufficient ratings to be included in the model. Eleven dimensions reached a median ≥ 7 on both criteria (relevance and clarity). Four dimensions had a median < 7 on one or both criteria. The five dimensions rated as most important were: patient as a unique person, patient involvement in care, patient information, clinician-patient communication and patient empowerment.Discussion11 out of the 15 dimensions have been validated through experts' ratings. Further research on the four dimensions that received insufficient ratings is recommended. The priority order of the dimensions can help researchers and clinicians to focus on the most important dimensions of patient-centeredness. Overall, the model provides a useful framework that can be used in the development of measures, interventions, and medical education curricula, as well as the adoption of a new perspective in health policy.
| S-EPMC4635011 | biostudies-literature