Distilling Check-in/Check-Out into Its Core Practice Elements Through an Expert Consensus Process.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Supplementary information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12310-021-09495-x.
SUBMITTER: Filter KJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8791689 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and aimsConsensus regarding an optimal algorithm for endoscopic treatment of papillary adenomas has not been established. We aimed to assess the existing degree of consensus among international experts and develop further concordance by means of a Delphi process.MethodsFifty-two international experts in the field of endoscopic papillectomy were invited to participate. Data were collected between August and December 2019 using an online survey platform. Three rounds were conducted. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement.ResultsSixteen experts (31%) completed the full process, and consensus was achieved on 47 of the final 79 statements (59%). Diagnostic workup should include at least an upper endoscopy using a duodenoscope (100%) and biopsy sampling (94%). There should be selected use of additional abdominal imaging (75%-81%). Patients with (suspected) papillary malignancy or over 1 cm intraductal extension should be referred for surgical resection (76%). To prevent pancreatitis, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be administered before resection (82%) and a pancreatic stent should be placed (100%). A biliary stent is indicated in case of ongoing bleeding from the papillary region (76%) or concerns for a (micro)perforation after resection (88%). Follow-up should be started 3 to 6 months after initial papillectomy and repeated every 6 to 12 months for at least 5 years (75%).ConclusionsThis is the first step in developing an international consensus-based algorithm for endoscopic management of papillary adenomas. Surprisingly, in many areas consensus could not be achieved. These aspects should be the focus of future studies.
| S-EPMC8878358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Placebo and nocebo effects occur in clinical or laboratory medical contexts after administration of an inert treatment or as part of active treatments and are due to psychobiological mechanisms such as expectancies of the patient. Placebo and nocebo studies have evolved from predominantly methodological research into a far-reaching interdisciplinary field that is unravelling the neurobiological, behavioural and clinical underpinnings of these phenomena in a broad variety of medical conditions. As a consequence, there is an increasing demand from health professionals to develop expert recommendations about evidence-based and ethical use of placebo and nocebo effects for clinical practice. METHODS:A survey and interdisciplinary expert meeting by invitation was organized as part of the 1st Society for Interdisciplinary Placebo Studies (SIPS) conference in 2017. Twenty-nine internationally recognized placebo researchers participated. RESULTS:There was consensus that maximizing placebo effects and minimizing nocebo effects should lead to better treatment outcomes with fewer side effects. Experts particularly agreed on the importance of informing patients about placebo and nocebo effects and training health professionals in patient-clinician communication to maximize placebo and minimize nocebo effects. CONCLUSIONS:The current paper forms a first step towards developing evidence-based and ethical recommendations about the implications of placebo and nocebo research for medical practice, based on the current state of evidence and the consensus of experts. Future research might focus on how to implement these recommendations, including how to optimize conditions for educating patients about placebo and nocebo effects and providing training for the implementation in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC6191882 | biostudies-other
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:The required minimum number of psychiatric inpatient beds is highly debated and has substantial resource implications. The present study used the Delphi method to try to reach a global consensus on the minimum and optimal psychiatric bed numbers. An international board of scientific advisors nominated the Delphi panel members. In the first round, the expert panel provided responses exploring estimate ranges for a minimum to optimal numbers of psychiatric beds and three levels of shortage. In a second round, the panel reconsidered their responses using the input from the total group to achieve consensus. The Delphi panel comprised 65 experts (42% women, 54% based in low- and middle-income countries) from 40 countries in the six regions of the World Health Organization. Sixty psychiatric beds per 100 000 population were considered optimal and 30 the minimum, whilst 25-30 was regarded as mild, 15-25 as moderate, and less than 15 as severe shortage. This is the first expert consensus on minimum and optimal bed numbers involving experts from HICs and LMICs. Many high-income countries have psychiatric bed numbers that fall within the recommended range. In contrast, the number of beds in many LMIC is below the minimum recommended rate.
| S-EPMC8780043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe emergency department (ED) visit rate for older patients exceeds that of all age groups other than infants. The aging population will increase elder ED patient utilization to 35% to 60% of all visits. Older patients can have complex clinical presentations and be resource-intensive. Evidence indicates that emergency physicians fail to provide consistent high-quality care for elder ED patients, resulting in poor clinical outcomes.ObjectivesThe objective was to develop a consensus document, "Geriatric Competencies for Emergency Medicine Residents," by identified experts. This is a minimum set of behaviorally based performance standards that all residents should be able to demonstrate by completion of their residency training.MethodsThis consensus-based process utilized an inductive, qualitative, multiphase method to determine the minimum geriatric competencies needed by emergency medicine (EM) residents. Assessments of face validity and reliability were used throughout the project.ResultsIn Phase I, participants (n=363) identified 12 domains and 300 potential competencies. In Phase II, an expert panel (n=24) clustered the Phase I responses, resulting in eight domains and 72 competencies. In Phase III, the expert panel reduced the competencies to 26. In Phase IV, analysis of face validity and reliability yielded a 100% consensus for eight domains and 26 competencies. The domains identified were atypical presentation of disease; trauma, including falls; cognitive and behavioral disorders; emergent intervention modifications; medication management; transitions of care; pain management and palliative care; and effect of comorbid conditions.ConclusionsThe Geriatric Competencies for EM Residents is a consensus document that can form the basis for EM residency curricula and assessment to meet the demands of our aging population.
| S-EPMC3221481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Academic achievement is a strong preventive factor against marginalization. Children at risk of academic failure and drop out can benefit from out-of-school-time academic (OSTA) interventions. Wide-scaled implementation and sustainment of effective interventions remain a struggle across education, welfare, and health. The need for approaches to increase implementability, effectiveness, and efficiency of interventions is pressing. Advancements in the field of education and mental health suggest identifying and studying discrete elements that are common across interventions for the purpose of hypothesis generation, intervention optimization, design improvement, and implementation. This review identified OSTA interventions for primary school children at risk of academic failure. Common elements methodology was used to code practice elements (n?= 62), process elements (n?= 49), and implementation elements (n?= 36) in 30 effective and six ineffective OSTA interventions in matrices. Based on frequency counts, common practice, process, and implementation elements across the interventions were identified, and given frequency count values (FV) reflecting how often elements were included in effective studies as opposed to in ineffective studies. The five common practice elements with the highest FVs were homework support, training in positive parental school involvement, positive reinforcement, structured tutoring, and psychoeducation. The most common process element was regular support to intervention receiver, and the most common implementation element was quality monitoring. Common combinations of elements were also identified and given FVs. Results from this review can inform efforts to design or optimize OSTA interventions, and inform education, implementation, and practice to improve academic achievement for children at risk.
| S-EPMC7162823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Identifying an intervention's core components is indispensable to gauging whether an intervention is implemented with fidelity and/or is modified; it is often a multi-stage process, starting with the first stage of identifying an initial set of core components that are gradually refined. This first stage of identifying initial core components has not been thoroughly examined. Without a clear set of steps to follow, interventions may vary in the rigor and thought applied to identifying their initial core components. We devised the CORE (Consensus on Relevant Elements) approach to synthesize opinions of intervention developers/implementers to identify an intervention's initial core components, particularly applicable to innovative interventions. We applied CORE to a peer-based intervention that aids military veterans with post-incarceration community reintegration. Our CORE application involved four intervention developers/implementers and two moderators to facilitate the seven CORE steps. Our CORE application had two iterations, moving through Steps 1 (individual core component suggestions) through 7 (group discussion for consensus), then repeating Steps 4 (consolidation of component definitions) through 7. This resulted in 18 consensus-reached initial core components of the peer-based intervention, down from the 60 that the developers/implementers individually suggested at Step 1. Removed components were deemed to not threaten the intervention's effectiveness even if absent. CORE contributes to filling a critical gap regarding identifying an intervention's initial core components (so that the identified components can be subsequently refined), by providing concrete steps for synthesizing the knowledge of an intervention's developers/implementers. Future research should examine CORE's utility across various interventions and implementation settings.
| S-EPMC10012682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeHip fracture is common in older people - with prevalence even higher for people with dementia. Research often excludes people with dementia - especially those in the more advanced stages. Therefore, the most appropriate interventions remain unknown. The main aim of this study was to gain consensus about the core considerations needed to deliver a physical intervention for people with advanced dementia who fracture their hip. Materials and Methods: An expert consensus process was undertaken, using Nominal Group Technique, to explore the key considerations when delivering rehabilitation. Data collection was undertaken in January 2023 and involved an online group discussion followed by voting and off-line rating. Qualitative content analysis and quantitative analysis of consensus scoring was undertaken. An international group of seven highly specialised physiotherapists took part.Results59 statements were agreed following the process. Content analysis was used to categorise these statements according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Although consensus levels were high, there was disagreement in several areas.ConclusionThe statements provide an overarching understanding of the multidisciplinary expertise that is needed to effectively deliver rehabilitation interventions to this population. People with dementia require highly skilled and trained professionals, providing holistic and person-centred approaches to deliver rehabilitation interventions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe expert consensus provides an overarching understanding of the multidisciplinary expertise that is needed to effectively deliver rehabilitation interventions to this population.Physiotherapy - or other interventions - cannot be used in isolation.People with dementia require highly skilled and trained professionals, providing holistic and person-centred approaches to deliver rehabilitation interventions.While our focus was on hip fracture, we suggest these statements can be used for people with advanced dementia with a variety of other conditions.
| S-EPMC11332403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) are an established treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Differences between GLP-1RAs in pharmacokinetics, dosing regimens and clinical effects, including cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, mean there may be benefits to switching from one to another. However, clinical guidance on switching is lacking and data from clinical trials are limited. This article provides a clinical perspective and consensus on the benefits of switching between GLP-1RAs, the triggers for switching and how best to manage this in clinical practice. Once weekly (OW) semaglutide is used as an example to illustrate how the authors might switch to a different GLP-1RA in clinical practice.MethodsLiterature was searched and perspectives from 10 healthcare professionals with experience in switching patients with T2D to OW semaglutide from another GLP-1RA were collated.ResultsMedical triggers for switching to another GLP-1RA included HbA1c targets not being met, a desire for additional weight loss, poor adherence, patients moving to increased CV risk status and adverse effects with the current GLP-1RA. Non-medical triggers for switching included patient preference, cost, formulary changes and insurance mandates. Once the decision to switch is made, an individualised approach is recommended, based on considerations that include reimbursement requirements, treatment duration with (and dose of) previous GLP-1RA, the patient's experience initiating the prior GLP-1RA, any concomitant treatment and clinical characteristics. When switching, it is important to emphasise that treatment burden will not increase and that if gastrointestinal adverse effects occur, they are typically transient. Any transient gastrointestinal adverse effects that may occur (or recur) when switching to another GLP-1RA can be reduced by slow up-titration and advising patients to reduce food portion sizes and fat intake.ConclusionSwitching from one GLP-1RA to another, such as OW semaglutide, can provide clinical benefits and may delay the need for treatment intensification.
| S-EPMC7900946 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough in recent years there has been a strong increase in published research on theories (e.g. realist evaluation, normalization process theory) driving and guiding process evaluations of complex interventions, there is limited guidance to help rehabilitation researchers design and carry out process evaluations. This can lead to the risk of process evaluations being unsystematic. This paper reports on the development of new consensus guidelines that address the specific challenges of conducting process evaluations alongside clinical trials of rehabilitation interventions.MethodsA formal consensus process was carried out based on a modified nominal group technique, which comprised two phases. Phase I was informed by the findings of a systematic review, and included a nominal group meeting with an expert panel of participants to rate and discuss the proposed statements. Phase II was an in depth semi-structured telephone interviews with expert panel participants in order to further discuss the structure and contents of the revised guidelines. Frequency of rating responses to each statement was calculated and thematic analysis was carried out on all qualitative data.ResultsThe guidelines for carrying out process evaluations within complex intervention rehabilitation research were produced by combining findings from Phase I and Phase II. The consensus guidelines include recommendations that are grouped in seven sections. These sections are theoretical work, design and methods, context, recruitment and retention, intervention staff, delivery of the intervention and results. These sections represent different aspects or stages of the evaluation process.ConclusionThe consensus guidelines here presented can play a role at assisting rehabilitation researchers at the time of designing and conducting process evaluations alongside trials of complex interventions. The guidelines break new ground in terms of concepts and theory and works towards a consensus in regards to how rehabilitation researchers should go about carrying out process evaluations and how this evaluation should be linked into the proposed trials. These guidelines may be used, adapted and tested by rehabilitation researchers depending on the research stage or study design (e.g. feasibility trial, pilot trial, etc.).
| S-EPMC6311071 | biostudies-literature