Objectives: This paper illustrates the development of a guideline to build a concept mapping based-learning strategy. Called the Rusnani concept mapping (RCM) protocol guideline, it was adapted from the Mohd Afifi learning model (MoAFF) and the analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation (ADDIE) model, integrated with the Kemp model.

Methods: This model uses the five phases of analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation. The validity of the guideline was determined by using content and face validity and the Delphi technique. Content validity for this RCM guideline was established using expert review. This formula suggested that if the content validity is greater than 70%, it shows good content validity, and if it is less than 70%, the content validity is low and it is advisable to recheck the content according to the objective of the study.

Results: The reliability of the RCM was 0.816, showing that the RCM guideline has high reliability and validity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We published our protocol apriori. Current guidelines for case series (PROCESS), cohort studies (STROBE) and randomised controlled trials (CONSORT) were analysed to compile a list of items which were used as baseline material for developing a suitable checklist for surgical cohort guidelines. These were then put forward in a Delphi consensus exercise to an expert panel of 74 surgeons and academics via Google Forms.

RESULTS: The Delphi exercise was completed by 62% (46/74) of the participants. All the items were passed in a single round to create a STROCSS guideline consisting of 17 items.

AIM: To develop an international taxonomy of standardized terms and activity definitions related to medication reviews.

METHOD: This was a three-stage Delphi-based consensus study with international medication review experts. A systematic review provided MR activity terms for the survey. Experts rated their consensus on each activity term and its definition on a Likert scale and provided written feedback. The consensus was 75% panel agreement. At each stage, consensus elements were retained, and feedback was used to revise definitions.

RESULTS: Seven experts were recruited for the study (response rate 15.2%) from four countries: the United Kingdom (n = 4), New Zealand (n = 1), Australia (n = 1), and Malaysia (n = 1). The following terms achieved consensus: the term Medication as a descriptor for MR terms; discontinue medication, start medication, dose increase, dose decrease, dosage form change, and medication safety and efficacy monitor to describe MR activity; Educate to describe the delivery of healthcare professionals and patients/carers education.

OBJECTIVE: The researchers believed that culturally sensitive video narratives, which catered to a specific niche, would reveal a personalized impact on medication adherence. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and validate video narratives for this purpose.

METHODS: This study adapted the Delphi method to develop a consensus on the video scripts' contents based on learning outcomes and HBM constructs. The panel of experts comprised 8 members representing professional stroke disease experts and experienced poststroke patients in Malaysia. The Delphi method involved 3 rounds of discussions. Once the consensus among members was achieved, the researchers drafted the initial scripts in English, which were then back translated to the Malay language. A total of 10 bilingual patients, within the study's inclusion criteria, screened the scripts for comprehension. Subsequently, a neurologist and poststroke patient narrated the scripts in both languages as they were filmed, to add to the realism of the narratives. Then, the video narratives underwent a few cycles of editing after some feedback on video engagement by the bilingual patients. Few statistical analyses were applied to confirm the validity and reliability of the video narratives.

RESULTS: Initially, the researchers proposed 8 learning outcomes and 9 questions based on HBM constructs for the video scripts' content. However, following Delphi rounds 1 to 3, a few statements were omitted and rephrased. The Kendall coefficient of concordance, W, was about 0.7 (PDelphi method was proven to be helpful in conducting discussions systematically and providing precise content for the development of video narratives, whereas the Video Engagement Scale was an appropriate measurement of video realism and emotions, which the researchers believed could positively impact medication understanding and use self-efficacy among patients with stroke. A feasibility and acceptability study in an actual stroke care center is needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research method was qualitative using a Delphi technique. The statistical population consisted of 12 specialists in the field of medical library and information science and researchers and healthcare professionals. Eight dimensions and 42 items of patients' rights were identified and were approved by Delphi panel.

RESULTS: Regarding patients' rights to benefit from consumer health information services, eight dimensions including the right to health knowledge, the right to access to health information, the professional behavior of medical librarians with patients, content richness, information seeking skills, awareness of new services and products, the ease of using health information centers, and the professional behavior of healthcare professionals with patients were identified and approved.

METHODS: A Delphi questionnaire consisted of 29 Part 1 and nine Part 2 indicators which were incorporated into a tool called Simpler™. The indicators were mainly sourced from American, Australian and Malaysian diabetes management guidelines. Diabetes experts were asked to rank indicators in the order of importance in Part 1. In Part 2, indicators had to be chosen for inclusion into Simpler™ using a fivepoint Likert scale. The consensus level was pre-set at 60%.

RESULTS: A three round Delphi process was used to validate all 38 indicators by 12 experts from Australia and Malaysia: five pharmacists, four doctors, two endocrinologists and a diabetes nurse. Consensus was reached for 93.1% (27/29) of the Part 1 indicators and all nine Part 2 indicators (100%). Five out of nine indicators in Part 2 questionnaire obtained consensus disagreement for inclusion into the Simpler ™ tool.

METHODS: A total of 29 international experts with clinical and/or research experience in GD completed three iterative rounds of a Delphi survey. Experts rated proposed criteria in progressive rounds until a pre-determined level of agreement was achieved.

RESULTS: For DSM-5 IGD criteria, there was an agreement both that a subset had high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value and that some (e.g. tolerance, deception) had low diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Crucially, some DSM-5 criteria (e.g. escapism/mood regulation, tolerance) were regarded as incapable of distinguishing between problematic and non-problematic gaming. In contrast, ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for GD (except for the criterion relating to diminished non-gaming interests) were judged as presenting high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value.

Methods: A TCTM for students of dentistry was developed using ADDIE framework as a guide. Content and construct validation of the module was done by six subject experts using Delphi technique for obtaining consensus. Pilot testing was done on 20 students of third year BDS. Pre- and post-intervention assessment of knowledge, attitude, self-confidence was done using learning outcomes questionnaire. Ability to correctly identify oral manifestations was assessed using extended item MCQs and tobacco counseling skills using a modified KEECC. The difference in mean scores were computed and subjected to further statistical analysis using SPSS version 22.

Results: There was a significant improvement in post intervention scores for mean knowledge (5.5 ± 1.4 to 13.2 ± 1.1), attitude (5.6 ± 0.9 and 8.5 ± 0.5), self-confidence (1.5 ± 0.5 and 3.1 ± 0.2), ability to correctly identify oral manifestations (5.2 ± 1.4 and 9.4 ± 0.8) and tobacco counseling skills.

METHOD: The Delphi method was used to develop consensus statements through identification of clinical questions on diagnostic endoscopy. Three consensus meetings were conducted to consolidate the statements and voting. We conducted a systematic literature search on evidence for each statement. The statements were presented in the second consensus meeting and revised according to comments. The final voting was conducted at the third consensus meeting on the level of evidence and agreement.

RESULTS: Risk stratification should be conducted before endoscopy and high risk endoscopic findings should raise an index of suspicion. The presence of premalignant mucosal changes should be documented and use of sedation is recommended to enhance detection of superficial upper GI neoplasms. The use of antispasmodics and mucolytics enhanced visualisation of the upper GI tract, and systematic endoscopic mapping should be conducted to improve detection. Sufficient examination time and structured training on diagnosis improves detection. Image enhanced endoscopy in addition to white light imaging improves detection of superficial upper GI cancer. Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging is recommended for characterisation of upper GI superficial neoplasms. Endoscopic characterisation can avoid unnecessary biopsy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A long list of outcomes will be generated using (1) a systematic review of existing studies on OA-TOF and (2) qualitative research with children (patients), adults (patients) and families involving focus groups, semistructured interviews and self-reported outcome activity packs. A two-phase Delphi survey will then be completed by four key stakeholder groups: (1) patients (paediatric and adult); (2) families; (3) healthcare professionals; and (4) researchers. Phase I will include stakeholders individually rating the importance and relevance of each long-listed outcome using a 9-point Likert scale, with the option to suggest additional outcomes not already included. During phase II, stakeholders will review summarised results from phase I relative to their own initial score and then will be asked to rescore the outcome based on this information. Responses from phase II will be summarised using descriptive statistics and a predefined definition of consensus for inclusion or exclusion of outcomes. Following the Delphi process, stakeholder experts will be invited to review data at a consensus meeting and agree on a COS for OA-TOF.

METHODS: A steering committee identified three areas to address: (1) burden of disease and diagnosis of reflux disease; (2) proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease; (3) Barrett's oesophagus. Three working groups formulated draft statements with supporting evidence. Discussions were done via email before a final face-to-face discussion. We used a Delphi consensus process, with a 70% agreement threshold, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to categorise the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

RESULTS: A total of 32 statements were proposed and 31 were accepted by consensus. A rise in the prevalence rates of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Asia was noted, with the majority being non-erosive reflux disease. Overweight and obesity contributed to the rise. Proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease was recognised to be common. A distinction was made between refractory symptoms and refractory reflux disease, with clarification of the roles of endoscopy and functional testing summarised in two algorithms. The definition of Barrett's oesophagus was revised such that a minimum length of 1 cm was required and the presence of intestinal metaplasia no longer necessary. We recommended the use of standardised endoscopic reporting and advocated endoscopic therapy for confirmed dysplasia and early cancer.

METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.

RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).