METHODS: With representation from Europe (43%; n = 133), North America (17%; n = 53), South America (16%; n = 49), Asia (13%; n = 40), Australasia (5%; n = 16), the Middle East (4%; n = 12), and Africa (2%; n = 6), the combined experience of treating bone sarcomas among attendees totalled approximately 30,000 cases annually, equivalent to 66 years of experience in the UK alone. The meeting's process began with the formation of a local organizing committee, regional leads, and a scientific committee comprising representatives from 150 specialist units across 47 countries. Supported by major orthopaedic oncology organizations, the meeting used a modified Delphi process to develop consensus statements through online questionnaires, thematic groupings, narrative reviews, and anonymous pre-meeting polling.
RESULTS: Strong (> 80%) consensus was achieved on 19 out of 21 statements, reflecting agreement among delegates. Key areas of consensus included the role of radiology in diagnosis and surveillance, the management of locally recurrent disease, and the treatment of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. Notably, there was agreement that routine chemotherapy has no role in chondrosarcoma treatment, and radiological surveillance is safe for intraosseous chondrosarcomas. Despite the overall consensus, areas of controversy remain, particularly regarding the treatment of atypical cartilage tumours and surgical margins. These unresolved issues underscore the need for further research and collaboration within the orthopaedic oncology community.
CONCLUSION: BOOM represents the largest global consensus meeting in orthopaedic oncology, providing valuable guidance for clinicians managing chondrosarcoma worldwide. The consensus statements offer a reference for clinical practice, highlight key research priorities, and aim to improve patient outcomes on a global scale.
METHODS: We conducted a two-round modified Delphi survey among local and international communication experts, and also recipients of medicines risk communication in Malaysia. We developed a list of 37 strategies based on the findings of our previous studies. In Round 1, participants were asked to rate the priority for each strategy using a 5-point Likert scale and suggest additional strategies via free-text comments. Strategies scoring a mean of ≥ 3.75 were included in Round 2. We defined consensus for the final list of strategies a priori as > 75% agreement. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Our final Delphi panel (n = 39, 93% response rate) comprised medicines communication experts from nine countries and Malaysian healthcare professionals. Following Round 1, we dropped 14 strategies and added 11 strategies proposed by panellists. In the second round, 21 strategies achieved consensus. The priority areas identified were to improve the format and content of risk communication, increase the use of technology, and increase collaboration with various stakeholders. Priority ratings for the strategy "to offer incentives to pharmaceutical companies which maintain effective communication systems" were significantly higher among recipients compared to communicators [χ2(1, N = 39) = 10.1; p = 0.039] and among local versus international panellists [χ2(1, N = 39) = 14.3; p = 0.007].
CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified 21 priority strategies, which were used to develop a strategic plan for enhancing medicines risk communication. This plan is potentially adaptable to all countries with developing pharmacovigilance systems. The difference in views between communicators and recipients, as well as local and international panellists, highlights the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in research.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive framework for Shariah-compliant healthcare services, ensuring alignment with Islamic practices in healthcare.
METHODS, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: This consensus study employed a key input approach using the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) and interpretive structural modelling. Conducted in Malaysia, the study involved 10 experts from various regions across the country. These experts were selected based on clear criteria that included professionals with experience in Islamic and/or healthcare, while those lacking relevant expertise were excluded.
RESULTS: The primary outcome was the identification of pertinent elements for the framework, with final elements measured based on expert consensus achieved through FDM. The panel of experts reached consensus on 10 essential elements that form the backbone of the framework for Shariah-compliant healthcare services. These elements include governance, medical ethics, patient care, human resources and professional development, facilities for Islamic worship (ibadah), spiritual care support, end-of-life care, Islamic environment, medicine and drugs, and affordability and accessibility.
CONCLUSION: Ultimately, the development of this comprehensive framework is a crucial step in addressing the specific needs and concerns of Muslim patients worldwide. By incorporating the input and consensus of experts from various relevant fields, the resulting framework provides healthcare professionals with a solid foundation to deliver healthcare services that align with Islamic values, ultimately promoting the well-being of Muslim patients in Malaysia and tourists globally.
METHODS: We invited eye care professionals to complete a two-round online prioritisation process. In round 1, panellists nominated population groups least able to access refractive error services, and strategies to improve access. Responses were summarised and presented in round 2, where panellists ranked the groups (by extent of difficulty and size) and strategies (in terms of reach, acceptability, sustainability, feasibility and equity). Groups and strategies were scored according to their rank within each sub-region.
RESULTS: Seventy five people from 17 countries completed both rounds (55% women). Regional differences were evident. Indigenous peoples were a priority group for improving access in Australasia and Southeast Asia, while East Asia identified refugees and Oceania identified rural/remote people. Across the five sub-regions, reducing out-of-pocket costs was a commonly prioritised strategy for refraction and spectacles. Australasia prioritised improving cultural safety, East Asia prioritised strengthening school eye health programmes and Oceania and Southeast Asia prioritised outreach to rural areas.
CONCLUSION: These results provide policy-makers, researchers and funders with a starting point for context-specific actions to improve access to refractive error services, particularly among underserved population groups who may be left behind in existing private sector-dominated models of care.
METHODS: We invited 138 potentially eligible participants to take part in the Delphi survey from a representative spread of expertise and geography. We employed a Likert scale with comments for our 32-item proposal in round 1, and a dichotomous scale with comments for our 29-item proposal in round 2. Threshold for agreement was set at ≥ 80% for both rounds.
RESULTS: Forty-seven potentially eligible participants responded to our invitation, 38 completed the first round and 36 completed the second. N = 23 (72%) items achieved ≥ 80% in round 1, and 100% of items in round 2. Three items were dropped or merged following round 1. A third Delphi round was not required to obtain consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi expert consensus proposes a 29-item checklist specific to the reporting of nutrition RCTs and will inform further development of guidance through forthcoming consensus meetings.
OBJECTIVE: To identify how to improve surveillance of movement behaviours, from the perspective of experts.
METHODS: This Delphi Study involved 62 experts from the SUNRISE International Study of Movement Behaviours in the Early Years and Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance (AHKGA). Two survey rounds were used, with items categorised under: (1) funding, (2) capacity building, (3) methods, and (4) other issues (e.g., policymaker awareness of relevant WHO Guidelines and Strategies). Expert participants ranked 40 items on a five-point Likert scale from 'extremely' to 'not at all' important. Consensus was defined as > 70% rating of 'extremely' or 'very' important.
RESULTS: We received 62 responses to round 1 of the survey and 59 to round 2. There was consensus for most items. The two highest rated round 2 items in each category were the following; for funding (1) it was greater funding for surveillance and public funding of surveillance; for capacity building (2) it was increased human capacity for surveillance (e.g. knowledge, skills) and regional or global partnerships to support national surveillance; for methods (3) it was standard protocols for surveillance measures and improved measurement method for screen time; and for other issues (4) it was greater awareness of physical activity guidelines and strategies from WHO and greater awareness of the importance of surveillance for NCD prevention. We generally found no significant differences in priorities between low-middle-income (n = 29) and high-income countries (n = 30) or between SUNRISE (n = 20), AHKGA (n = 26) or both (n = 13) initiatives. There was a lack of agreement on using private funding for surveillance or surveillance research.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a prioritised and international consensus list of actions required to improve surveillance of movement behaviours in children and adolescents globally.
METHODS: An international multidisciplinary Steering Committee with expertise in sepsis management and including a Delphi methodologist was convened by the Asia Pacific Sepsis Alliance (APSA). The committee selected an international panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in sepsis management. A Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus statements.
RESULTS: A stable consensus was achieved for 30 (94%) of the statements by 41 experts after four survey rounds. These include consensus on managing patients with sepsis outside a designated critical care area, triggers for escalating clinical management and criteria for safe transfer to another facility. The experts agreed on the following: in the absence of serum lactate, clinical parameters such as altered mental status, capillary refill time and urine output may be used to guide resuscitation; special considerations regarding the volume of fluid used for resuscitation, especially in tropical infections, including the use of simple tests to assess fluid responsiveness when facilities for advanced hemodynamic monitoring are limited; use of Ringer's lactate or Hartmann's solution as balanced salt solutions; epinephrine when norepinephrine or vasopressin are unavailable; and the administration of vasopressors via a peripheral vein if central venous access is unavailable or not feasible. Similarly, where facilities for investigation are unavailable, there was consensus for empirical antimicrobial administration without delay when sepsis was strongly suspected, as was the empirical use of antiparasitic agents in patients with suspicion of parasitic infections.
CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, international experts reached consensus to generate expert clinical practice statements providing guidance to clinicians worldwide on the management of sepsis in resource-limited settings. These statements complement existing guidelines where evidence is lacking and add relevant aspects of sepsis management that are not addressed by current international guidelines. Future studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address remaining uncertainties.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.
RESULTS: After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.
CONCLUSION: A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Methods: The modified Delphi method was used to obtain the consensus. The initial indicators, based on a literature review, were evaluated and assessed by members of the expert panel through three rounds of repetition until the consensus was reached. The expert panel members were selected based on their knowledge of or expertise in pharmacy service performance and geographical considerations. Analysis of the expert panel consensus level was determined by calculating the mean and interquartile range.
Results: Fifteen expert panel members started the first round (93.7% of the 16 targets) with 12 of them (75%) completing the third round of the modified Delphi method. Three expert panel members were representatives of the Regency Health Office, and the others were pharmacist practitioners at primary health centres from three different regencies. The consensus results were 26 indicators of drug management, 19 indicators of clinical pharmacy services, and two indicators of overall pharmacy performance.
Conclusion: The consensus indicators for measuring drug management, clinical pharmacy services, and overall pharmacy performance can be used as a reference and standard to measure the quality of pharmacy services at primary health centres. Therefore, the measurement results are more relevant if compared between one and other studies.
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.
Conclusion: It is practical and acceptable for nurse educators to apply RCM as an effective and innovative teaching method to enhance the academic performance of their nursing students.