A modified Delphi process to establish research priorities in hernia surgery
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Abdominal wall hernia repair is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide, yet despite this, there remains a lack of high-quality evidence to support best management. The aim of the study was to use a modified Delphi process to determine future research priorities in this field. Methods
Stakeholders were invited by email, using British Hernia Society membership details or Twitter, to submit individual research questions via an online survey. In addition, questions obtained from a patient focus group (PFG) were collated to form Phase I. Two rounds of prioritization by stakeholders (phases II and III) were then completed to determine a final list of research questions. All questions were analyzed on an anonymized basis. Results
A total of 266 questions, 19 from the PFG, were submitted by 113 stakeholders in Phase I. Of these, 64 questions were taken forward for prioritization in Phase II, which was completed by 107 stakeholders. Following Phase II analysis, 97 stakeholders prioritized 36 questions in Phase III. This resulted in a final list of 14 research questions, 3 of which were from the PFG. Stakeholders included patients and healthcare professionals (consultant surgeons, trainee surgeons and other multidisciplinary members) from over 27 countries during the 3 phases. Conclusion
The study has identified 14 key research priorities pertaining to abdominal wall hernia surgery. Uniquely, these priorities have been determined from participation by both healthcare professionals and patients. These priorities should now be addressed by well-designed, high-quality international collaborative research. Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10029-021-02519-0.
SUBMITTER: Scrimgeour D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557712 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The Vascular Research Collaborative was established to develop a national research strategy for patients with vascular disease in the UK. This project aimed to establish national research priorities in this patient group. A modified Delphi approach, an established method for reaching a consensus opinion among a group of experts in a particular field, was used to survey national multidisciplinary vascular clinical specialists. Two rounds of online surveys were conducted involving the membership of the Vascular Society, Society of Vascular Nurses, Society for Vascular Technology, and the Rouleaux Club (vascular surgical trainees). The first round invited any suggestions for vascular research topics. A steering group then collated and rationalized the suggestions, categorizing them by consensus into pathological topics and research categories, and amalgamating the various questions relating to the same fundamental issue into a single question. The second round involved recirculating these questions to the same participants for priority scoring. Round 1 resulted in 1231 suggested research questions from 481 respondents. Steering group collation and rationalization resulted in 83 questions for ranking in round 2. The second round resulted in a hierarchical list of vascular research priorities. The highest scoring priorities addressed topics related to critical lower-limb ischaemia, diabetic foot disease, amputation, wound healing, carotid plaque morphology, and service organization/delivery. It is anticipated that these results will drive the UK national vascular research agenda for the next 5-10 years. It will facilitate focused development and funding of new research projects in current clinical areas of unmet need where potential impact is greatest.
| S-EPMC7944495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite increasing international interest, there is a lack of evidence about the most efficient, effective and acceptable ways to implement patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials.To identify the priorities of UK PPI stakeholders for methodological research to help resolve uncertainties about PPI in clinical trials.A modified Delphi process including a two round online survey and a stakeholder consensus meeting.In total, 237 people registered of whom 219 (92%) completed the first round. One hundred and eighty-seven of 219 (85%) completed the second; 25 stakeholders attended the consensus meeting.Round 1 of the survey comprised 36 topics; 42 topics were considered in round 2 and at the consensus meeting. Approximately 96% of meeting participants rated the top three topics as equally important. These were as follows: developing strong and productive working relationships between researchers and PPI contributors; exploring PPI practices in selecting trial outcomes of importance to patients; and a systematic review of PPI activity to improve the accessibility and usefulness of trial information (eg participant information sheets) for participants.The prioritized methodological research topics indicate important areas of uncertainty about PPI in trials. Addressing these uncertainties will be critical to enhancing PPI. Our findings should be used in the planning and funding of PPI in clinical trials to help focus research efforts and minimize waste.
| S-EPMC5689224 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDevelopments in digital health have the potential to transform the delivery of health and social care to help citizens manage their health. Currently, there is a lack of consensus about digital health research priorities in palliative care and a lack of theories about how these technologies might improve care outcomes. Therefore, it is important for health care leaders to identify innovations to ensure that an increasingly frail population has appropriate access to palliative care services. Consequently, it is important to articulate research priorities as the first step in determining how finite resources should be allocated to a field saturated with rapidly developing innovation.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to identify research priority areas for digital health in palliative care.MethodsWe selected digital health trends, most relevant to palliative care, from a list of emerging trends reported by a leading institute of quantitative futurists. We conducted 2 rounds of the Delphi questionnaire, followed by a consensus meeting and public engagement workshop to establish a final consensus on research priorities for digital technology in palliative care. We used the views of public representatives to gain their perspectives on the agreed priorities.ResultsA total of 103 experts (representing 11 countries) participated in the first Delphi round. Of the 103 experts, 55 (53.3%) participated in the second round. The final consensus meetings were attended by 10.7% (11/103) of the experts. We identified 16 priority areas, which involved many applications of technologies, including care for patients and caregivers, self-management and reporting of diseases, education and training, communication, care coordination, and research methodology. We summarized the priority areas into eight topics: big data, mobile devices, telehealth and telemedicine, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, smart home, biotechnology, and digital legacy.ConclusionsThe priorities identified in this study represent a wide range of important emerging areas in the fields of digital health, personalized medicine, and data science. Human-centered design and robust governance systems should be considered in future research. It is important that the risks of using these technologies in palliative care are properly addressed to ensure that these tools are used meaningfully, wisely, and safely and do not cause unintentional harm.
| S-EPMC9090235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe increase in global wildland fire activity has accelerated the urgency to understand health risks associated with wildland fire suppression. The aim of this project was to identify occupational health research priorities for wildland firefighters and related personnel.DesignIn order to identify, rank and rate health research priorities, we followed a modified Delphi approach. Data collection involved a two-stage online survey followed by semi-structured interviews.SettingBritish Columbia, Canada.ParticipantsParticipants included any current or past wildland firefighter or individuals engaged in related roles. There were 132 respondents to the first survey. Responses to the first survey were analysed to produce 10 research topics which were ranked by 75 participants in the second survey (response rate: 84%).Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the identification, ranking and level of agreement of research priorities through a two-round online survey. We contextualised these findings through deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis of semi-structured interviews.ResultsThe most important research priorities identified were (% consensus): effects of smoke inhalation on respiratory health (89%), fatigue and sleep (80%), mental health (78%), stress (76%) and long-term risk of disease (67%). Interviews were completed with 14 individuals. Two main themes were developed from an inductive content analysis of interview transcripts: (1) understanding the dynamic risk environment; and (2) organisational fit of mitigation strategies.ConclusionsParticipants expressed a general concern with the unknown mental and physical health impacts of their jobs, including the long-term risk of morbidity and mortality. Future research must address knowledge gaps in our understanding of the health impacts of wildland fire and work to develop appropriate mitigation strategies while considering the needs of workers and unpredictable workplace environment.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework, https://osf.io/ugz4s/.
| S-EPMC8814744 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh quality primary care is fundamental to achieving health for all. Research priority setting is a key facilitator of improving how research activity responds to concrete needs. There has never before been an attempt to identify international primary care research priorities, in order to guide resource allocation and to enhance global primary care. This study aimed to identify a list of top 10 primary care research priorities, as identified by members of the public, health professionals working in primary care, researchers, and policymakers.MethodsWe adapted the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process, to conduct multiple rounds of stakeholder recruitment and prioritization. The study included an online survey conducted in three languages, followed by an in-person priority setting exercise involving primary care stakeholders from 13 countries.FindingsParticipants identified a list of top 10 international primary care research priorities. These were focused on diverse topics such as enhancing use of information and communication technology, and improving integration of indigenous communities' knowledge in the design of primary care services. The main limitations of the study related to challenges in engaging an adequate diversity and number of appropriate stakeholders, particularly members of the public, in aggregating the diverse set of responses into coherent categories representative of the participants' perspectives and in adequately representing the diversity of submitted responses while ensuring research priorities on the final list are sufficiently actionable to guide resource allocation.ConclusionsThe top 10 identified research priorities have the potential to guide research resource allocation, supporting funding agencies and initiatives to promote global primary care research and practice.
| S-EPMC6201922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use among older adults contribute to adverse drug reactions, falls, cognitive impairment, noncompliance, hospitalization and mortality. While deprescribing - tapering, reducing or stopping a medication - is feasible and relatively safe, clinicians find it difficult to carry out. Deprescribing guidelines would facilitate this process. The aim of this paper is to identify and prioritize medication classes where evidence-based deprescribing guidelines would be of benefit to clinicians. A modified Delphi approach included a literature review to identify potentially inappropriate medications for the elderly, an expert panel to develop survey content and three survey rounds to seek consensus on priorities. Panel participants included three pharmacists, two family physicians and one social scientist. Sixty-five Canadian geriatrics experts (36 pharmacists, 19 physicians and 10 nurse practitioners) participated in the survey. Twenty-nine drugs/drug classes were included in the first survey with 14 reaching the required (? 70%) level of consensus, and 2 new drug classes added from qualitative comments. Fifty-three participants completed round two, and 47 participants completed round three. The final five priorities were benzodiazepines, atypical antipsychotics, statins, tricyclic antidepressants, and proton pump inhibitors; nine other drug classes were also identified as being in need of evidence-based deprescribing guidelines. The Delphi consensus process identified five priority drug classes for which expert clinicians felt guidance is needed for deprescribing. The classes of drugs that emerged strongly from the rankings dealt with mental health, cardiovascular, gastroenterological, and neurological conditions. The results suggest that deprescribing and overtreatment occurs through the full spectrum of primary care, and that evidence-based deprescribing guidelines are a priority in the care of the elderly.
| S-EPMC4388504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStandard interpretations of the ethical principle of respect for persons have not incorporated the views and values of patients, especially patients from groups underrepresented in research. This limits the ability of research ethics scholarship, guidance, and oversight to support inclusive, patient-centered research. This study aimed to identify the practical approaches that patients in community-based settings value most for conveying respect in genomics research.MethodsWe conducted a 3-round, web-based survey using the modified Delphi technique to identify areas of agreement among English-speaking patients at primary care clinics in Washington State and Idaho who had a personal or family history of cancer. In Round 1, respondents rated the importance of 17 items, identified in prior qualitative work, for feeling respected. In Round 2, respondents re-rated each item after reviewing overall group ratings. In Round 3, respondents ranked a subset of the 8 most highly rated items. We calculated each item's mean and median rankings in Round 3 to identify which approaches were most important for feeling respected in research.ResultsForty-one patients consented to the survey, 21 (51%) completed Round 1, and 18 (86% of Round 1) completed each of Rounds 2 and 3. Two sets of rankings were excluded from analysis as speed of response suggested they had not completed the Round 3 ranking task. Respondents prioritized provision of study information to support decision-making (mean ranking 2.6 out of 8; median ranking 1.5) and interactions with research staff characterized by kindness, patience, and a lack of judgment (mean ranking 2.8; median ranking 2) as the most important approaches for conveying respect.ConclusionsInformed consent and interpersonal interactions are key ways that research participants experience respect. These can be supported by other approaches to respecting participants, especially when consent and/or direct interactions are infeasible. Future work should continue to engage with patients in community-based settings to identify best practices for research without consent and examine unique perspectives across clinical and demographic groups in different types of research.
| S-EPMC10512546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSeveral challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology.MethodsA three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities.ResultsA total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis?ConclusionsThe results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.
| S-EPMC5670064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMaternal health outcomes in the USA are far worse than in peer nations. Increasing implementation research in maternity care is critical to addressing quality gaps and unwarranted variations in care. Implementation research priorities have not yet been defined or well represented in the plans for maternal health research investments in the USA.MethodsThis descriptive study used a modified Delphi method to solicit and rank research priorities at the intersection of implementation science and maternal health through two sequential web-based surveys. A purposeful, yet broad sample of researchers with relevant subject matter knowledge was identified through searches of published articles and grant databases. The surveys addressed five implementation research areas in maternal health: (1) practices to prioritize for broader implementation, (2) practices to prioritize for de-implementation, (3) research questions about implementation determinants, (4) research questions about implementation strategies, and (5) research questions about methods/measures.ResultsOf 160 eligible researchers, 82 (51.2%) agreed to participate. Participants were predominantly female (90%) and White (75%). Sixty completed at least one of two surveys. The practices that participants prioritized for broader implementation were improved postpartum care, perinatal and postpartum mood disorder screening and management, and standardized management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For de-implementation, practices believed to be most impactful if removed from or reduced in maternity care were cesarean delivery for low-risk patients and routine discontinuation of all psychiatric medications during pregnancy. The top methodological priorities of participants were improving the extent to which implementation science frameworks and measures address equity and developing approaches for involving patients in implementation research.ConclusionsThrough a web-based Delphi exercise, we identified implementation research priorities that researchers consider to have the greatest potential to improve the quality of maternity care in the USA. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of using modified Delphi approaches to engage researchers in setting implementation research priorities within a clinical area.
| S-EPMC10360260 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study asked consumers (patients, carers) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) to identify the most important symptoms for adults with cancer and potential treatment interventions.MethodsA modified Delphi study was conducted involving two rounds of electronic surveys based on prevalent cancer symptoms identified from the literature. Round 1 gathered information on participant demographics, opinions and/or experience on cancer symptom frequency and impact, and suggestions for interventions and/or service delivery models for further research to improve management of cancer symptoms. In Round 2, respondents ranked the importance of the top ten interventions identified in Round 1. In Round 3, separate expert panels of consumers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) attempted to reach consensus on the symptoms and interventions previously identified.ResultsConsensus was reached for six symptoms across both groups: fatigue, constipation, diarrhoea, incontinence, and difficulty with urination. Notably, fatigue was the only symptom to reach consensus across both groups in Round 1. Similarly, consensus was reached for six interventions across both groups. These were the following: medicinal cannabis, physical activity, psychological therapies, non-opioid interventions for pain, opioids for breathlessness and cough, and other pharmacological interventions.ConclusionsConsumers and HCPs prioritise differently; however, the symptoms and interventions that reached consensus provide a basis for future research. Fatigue should be considered a high priority given its prevalence and its influence on other symptoms. The lack of consumer consensus indicates the uniqueness of their experience and the need for a patient-centred approach. Understanding individual consumer experience is important when planning research into better symptom management.
| S-EPMC10317881 | biostudies-literature