gms | German Medical Science

21. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung

Deutsches Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung e. V.

05.10. - 07.10.2022, Potsdam

Who is the expert: methodological considerations of including patients as experts in Delphi panels

Meeting Abstract

Suche in Medline nach

  • Anna Bolzani - Cytel, Inc, Berlin, Deutschland
  • Jenny Noack - Cytel, Inc, Berlin, Deutschland
  • Marco Ghiani - Cytel, Inc, Berlin, Deutschland; IPAM, Wismar, Deutschland

21. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung (DKVF). Potsdam, 05.-07.10.2022. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2022. Doc22dkvf103

doi: 10.3205/22dkvf103, urn:nbn:de:0183-22dkvf1036

Veröffentlicht: 30. September 2022

© 2022 Bolzani et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.


Gliederung

Text

Background and state of (inter)national research: If insufficient data in health services research are available, Delphi panels for specific research questions can be used to come to a consensus between experts. Very often this method is used for clinical guidelines, but this study design is also helpful to answer for example current challenges in rare diseases with only limited available interventions and/or evidence. However, while most Delphi panels in health care research include health care practitioners and other stakeholders, only very few involve patients. Unknown terminology, potential language barriers (within international research), and recruitment issues could be stated as potential reasons.

Research question and objective: Identification and discussion of modified Delphi methods to include not only clinical experts, but also patients.

Method or hypothesis: A targeted literature review is planned to identify Delphi surveys and other Delphi methods with patients as participating stakeholders. Pubmed will be used to find published Delphi studies with patient participation within the last 15 years (2007–2022). Data will be extracted on the methodological aspects of the Delphi. The results regarding identified Delphi methods should be discussed during the conference to understand advantages and challenges of conducting Delphi panels including patients as stakeholders. It is expected to identify modified approaches, for example virtual meetings to discuss results after the survey rounds [1], or patient partners to rate patient views higher [2].

Discussion: In theory, Delphi panels are an excellent tool to identify consensus between experts. However, currently only very limited evidence and guidance is published on how to include patient as experts as well. Systematic and validated modified approaches are needed in order to also involve those, who are affected by the disease.

Practical implications: Giving the increased importance of participatory research across healthcare, this evidence gap needs to be addressed. The discussions during the conference will be used to further develop systematic guidelines to include patients in Delphi panels.

Appeal for practice (science and/or care) in one sentence: Systematic and validated modified approaches are needed for Delphi methods to not only involve clinical experts but those, who are affected by the disease.


References

1.
Fauconnier A, Staraci S, Daraï E, Descamps P, Nisolle M, Panel P, Roman H, Boulkedid R. A self-administered questionnaire to measure the painful symptoms of endometriosis: Results of a modified DELPHI survey of patients and physicians. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018 Feb;47(2):69-79. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.11.003 Externer Link
2.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, Altman D, Moher D, Barber R, Denegri S, Entwistle AR, Littlejohns P, Morris C, Suleman R, Thomas V, Tysall C. Reaching consensus on reporting patient and public involvement (PPI) in research: methods and lessons learned from the development of reporting guidelines. BMJ Open. 2017 Oct;7(10):e016948. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016948 Externer Link