Dataset Information

A modified Delphi study to enhance and gain international consensus on the Physical Activity Messaging Framework (PAMF) and Checklist (PAMC).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Physical activity messaging is an important step in the pathway towards improving population physical activity levels, but best practice is not yet understood. A gap in the literature exists for a physical activity messaging framework to help guide creation and evaluation of messages. This study aimed to further develop and improve, and gain international expert consensus on, a standardised Physical Activity Messaging Framework and Checklist.

Methods

A modified Delphi study consisting of three online survey rounds was conducted. Each survey gathered feedback from an international expert panel using quantitative and qualitative methods. The framework and checklist were amended between each round based on survey results until consensus (defined a priori as 80% agreement) was reached.

Results

The final expert panel (n = 40, 55% female) came from nine countries and comprised academics (55%), healthcare and other professionals (22.5%) and government officials or policymakers (22.5%). Consensus was reached in survey 3 with 85 and 87.5% agreement on the framework and checklist, respectively.

Conclusion

This study presents an expert- and evidence-informed framework and checklist for physical activity messaging. If used consistently, the Physical Activity Messaging Framework and Checklist may improve practice by encouraging evidence-based and target audience-focused messages, as well as enhance the research base on physical activity messaging by harmonising key terminologies and improving quality of reporting. Key next steps include further refining the Physical Activity Messaging Framework and Checklist based on their use in real-world settings.

SUBMITTER: Williamson C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8375197 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study presents a framework for determining the allocation and distribution of the limited amount of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).MethodsAfter analyzing the pandemic strategies of the major organizations and countries and with a literature review conducted by a core panel, a modified Delphi survey was administered to 13 experts in the fields of vaccination, infectious disease, and public health in the Republic of Korea. The following topics were discussed: 1) identifying the objectives of the vaccination strategy, 2) identifying allocation criteria, and 3) establishing a step-by-step vaccination framework and prioritization strategy based on the allocation criteria. Two rounds of surveys were conducted for each topic, with a structured questionnaire provided via e-mail in the first round. After analyzing the responses, a meeting with the experts was held to obtain consensus on how to prioritize the population groups.ResultsThe first objective of the vaccination strategy was maintenance of the integrity of the healthcare system and critical infrastructure, followed by reduction of morbidity and mortality and reduction of community transmission. In the initial phase, older adult residents in care homes, high-risk health and social care workers, and personal support workers who work in direct contact with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients would be prioritized. Expansion of vaccine supply would allow immunization of older adults not included in phase 1, followed by healthcare workers not previously included and individuals with comorbidities. Further widespread vaccine supply would ensure availability to the extended adult age groups (50-64 years old), critical workers outside the health sector, residents who cannot socially distance, and, eventually, the remaining populations.ConclusionThis survey provides the much needed insight into the decision-making process for vaccine allocation at the national level. However, flexibility in adapting to strategies will be essential, as new information is constantly emerging.

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop a consensus statement to provide advice on designing, implementing and evaluating crowdsourcing challenge contests in public health and medical contexts.DesignModified Delphi using three rounds of survey questionnaires and one consensus workshop.SettingUganda for face-to-face consensus activities, global for online survey questionnaires.ParticipantsA multidisciplinary expert panel was convened at a consensus-development conference in Uganda and included 21 researchers with experience leading challenge contests, five public health sector workers, and nine Ugandan end users. An online survey was sent to 140 corresponding authors of previously published articles that had used crowdsourcing methods.ResultsA subgroup of expert panel members developed the initial statement and survey. We received responses from 120 (85.7%) survey participants, which were presented at an in-person workshop of all 21 panel members. Panelists discussed each of the sections, revised the statement, and participated in a second round of the survey questionnaire. Based on this second survey round, we held detailed discussions of each subsection with workshop participants and further revised the consensus statement. We then conducted the third round of the questionnaire among the 21 expert panelists and used the results to finalize the statement. This iterative process resulted in 23 final statement items, all with greater than 80% consensus. Statement items are organised into the seven stages of a challenge contest, including the following: considering the appropriateness, organising a community steering committee, promoting the contest, assessing contributions, recognising contributors, sharing ideas and evaluating the contest (COPARSE).ConclusionsThere is high agreement among crowdsourcing experts and stakeholders on the design and implementation of crowdsourcing challenge contests. The COPARSE consensus statement can be used to organise crowdsourcing challenge contests, improve the rigour and reproducibility of crowdsourcing research and enable large-scale collaboration.

Project description:Background: Physical Activity Referral Schemes (PARS), including exercise referral schemes, are a popular approach to health improvement, but understanding of effectiveness is limited by considerable heterogeneity in reporting and evaluation. We aimed to gain consensus for a PARS taxonomy as a comprehensive method for reporting and recording of such schemes.Methods: We invited 62 experts from PARS policy, research and practice to complete a modified Delphi study. In round one, participants rated the need for a PARS taxonomy, the suitability of three proposed classification levels and commented on proposed elements. In round two, participants rated proposed taxonomy elements on an 11-point Likert scale. Elements scoring a median of ?7, indicating high agreement, were included in the final taxonomy.Results: Of those invited, 47 (75.8%) participated in round one, with high retention in round two (n?=?43; 91.5%). 42 were UK-based, meaning the resultant taxonomy has been scrutinised for fit to the UK context only. The study gained consensus for a three-level taxonomy: Level 1: PARS classification (primary classification, provider, setting, conditions accepted [have or at risk of], activity type and funding). Level 2: scheme characteristics (staff structure, staff qualifications, behaviour change theories, behaviour change techniques, referral source, referrers, referral process, scheme duration, session frequency, session length, session times, session type, exit routes, action in case of non-attendance, baseline assessment, exit assessment, feedback to referrer and exclusion criteria) and Level 3: participant measures (demographics, monitoring and evaluation, and measures of change).Conclusion: Using a modified Delphi method, this study developed UK-based consensus on a PARS classification taxonomy. We encourage PARS practitioners and public health colleagues, especially those working with similar service models internationally, to test, refine and use this taxonomy to inform policy and practice.

Project description:ObjectiveChallenges can exist when framing the decision question in a cost-effectiveness analysis, particularly when there is disagreement among experts on relevant comparators. Using prostate cancer screening and recent developments in risk stratification, early-detection biomarkers, and diagnostic technologies as a case study, we report a modified Delphi approach to handle decision-question uncertainty.MethodsThe study involved two rounds of anonymous online questionnaires to identify the prostate cancer screening strategies that international researchers, clinicians and decision makers felt important to consider in a cost-effectiveness model. Both purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit experts. The questionnaire was based on a review of the literature and was piloted for language, comprehension and ease of use prior to dissemination. In Round 1, respondents indicated their preferred screening strategy (including no screening) through a series of multiple-choice questions. The responses informed a set of 13 consensus statements, which respondents ranked their agreement with on a 9-point Likert scale (Round 2). Consensus was considered reached if > 70% of participants indicated agreement and < 15% indicated disagreement.ResultsTwenty participants completed Round 1 and 17 completed Round 2. Consensus was shown towards comparing no formal screening, age-based, and risk-based strategies. The risk-based approaches included screening only higher-risk men, using shorter screening intervals for higher-risk men, screening higher-risk men at an earlier age, and tailoring screening intervals based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at a previous test. There was agreement that inclusion of MRI in the pathway should be considered, but disagreement on the inclusion of new biomarkers.ConclusionIn disease areas where technologies are rapidly evolving, a modified Delphi approach provides a useful tool to identify relevant comparators in an economic evaluation.