12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Enteric Pathogen Testing Importance for Children with Acute Gastroenteritis: a Modified Delphi Study

      research-article
      a , , a , b , c , d , e ,
      Microbiology Spectrum
      American Society for Microbiology
      acute gastroenteritis, diagnostic stewardship, decision support, enteric pathogen

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          The application of clinical diagnostics for gastroenteritis in children has implications for a broad collection of stakeholders, impacting clinical care, communicable disease control, and laboratory utilization. To support diagnostic stewardship as gastroenteritis testing options continue to advance, it is critical to understand which enteropathogens constitute priorities for testing across stakeholder groups. Using a modified Delphi technique, we elicited opinions of subject matter experts to determine clinical and public health testing priorities. There was a high level of overall agreement (≥80%) among stakeholders (final round n = 15) that testing was important for Campylobacter, Escherichia coli O157 and other Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Vibrio, Yersinia, norovirus, and rotavirus. Immunocompromised children were identified as a special population that warranted the additional testing of three to four bacterial and parasitic targets. To support these clinical and public health testing priorities, diagnostic stewardship strategies can be employed, such as educating clinicians, developing new decision support tools, and using multiplex testing in concert with selective result reporting and annotation.

          IMPORTANCE Children with diarrhea and vomiting who seek care can be infected with a wide variety of infectious agents. This study reports findings from a survey of clinical, public health, and laboratory subject matter experts on the infectious agents that are most important to test for. The majority agreed on the importance of testing children likely infected with several bacterial agents, as well as two common viruses. Although confirming a child is positive for a viral agent is unlikely to change clinical care, participants noted the importance of monitoring these viruses for public health purposes. To avoid over-testing children, however, these results should be used to support diagnostic stewardship strategies and design new decision support tools.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.

          To investigate how consensus is operationalized in Delphi studies and to explore the role of consensus in determining the results of these studies. Systematic review of a random sample of 100 English language Delphi studies, from two large multidisciplinary databases [ISI Web of Science (Thompson Reuters, New York, NY) and Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, NL)], published between 2000 and 2009. About 98 of the Delphi studies purported to assess consensus, although a definition for consensus was only provided in 72 of the studies (64 a priori). The most common definition for consensus was percent agreement (25 studies), with 75% being the median threshold to define consensus. Although the authors concluded in 86 of the studies that consensus was achieved, consensus was only specified a priori (with a threshold value) in 42 of these studies. Achievement of consensus was related to the decision to stop the Delphi study in only 23 studies, with 70 studies terminating after a specified number of rounds. Although consensus generally is felt to be of primary importance to the Delphi process, definitions of consensus vary widely and are poorly reported. Improved criteria for reporting of methods of Delphi studies are required. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review

            Objective Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice. Methodology and Main Finding Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978–2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility. Conclusion The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Delphi Technique in Health Sciences: A Map

              Objectives: In health sciences, the Delphi technique is primarily used by researchers when the available knowledge is incomplete or subject to uncertainty and other methods that provide higher levels of evidence cannot be used. The aim is to collect expert-based judgments and often to use them to identify consensus. In this map, we provide an overview of the fields of application for Delphi techniques in health sciences in this map and discuss the processes used and the quality of the findings. We use systematic reviews of Delphi techniques for the map, summarize their findings and examine them from a methodological perspective. Methods: Twelve systematic reviews of Delphi techniques from different sectors of the health sciences were identified and systematically analyzed. Results: The 12 systematic reviews show, that Delphi studies are typically carried out in two to three rounds with a deliberately selected panel of experts. A large number of modifications to the Delphi technique have now been developed. Significant weaknesses exist in the quality of the reporting. Conclusion: Based on the results, there is a need for clarification with regard to the methodological approaches of Delphi techniques, also with respect to any modification. Criteria for evaluating the quality of their execution and reporting also appear to be necessary. However, it should be noted that we cannot make any statements about the quality of execution of the Delphi studies but rather our results are exclusively based on the reported findings of the systematic reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                Microbiol Spectr
                Microbiol Spectr
                spectrum
                Microbiology Spectrum
                American Society for Microbiology (1752 N St., N.W., Washington, DC )
                2165-0497
                20 September 2022
                Sep-Oct 2022
                20 September 2022
                : 10
                : 5
                : e01864-22
                Affiliations
                [a ] Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Minnesotagrid.17635.36, , Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
                [b ] Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
                [c ] Departments of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [d ] Sections of Pediatric Emergency Medicine and Gastroenterology, Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [e ] Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                Quest Diagnostics
                Author notes

                The authors declare a conflict of interest. G.A.M.T.: none. D.P.: none. P.I.T.: serves as a member on the Data Safety Monitoring Board of Inmunova. S.B.F.: none.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7372-1034
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4078-7517
                Article
                01864-22 spectrum.01864-22
                10.1128/spectrum.01864-22
                9602993
                36125298
                2e816f09-60e7-4401-9095-26d2556659f2
                Copyright © 2022 Tarr et al.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

                History
                : 20 May 2022
                : 31 August 2022
                Page count
                supplementary-material: 0, Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 44, Pages: 10, Words: 6526
                Funding
                Funded by: Alberta Children’s Hospital Foundation, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100003206;
                Award ID: Professorship in Child Health and Wellness
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR);
                Award ID: Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Alberta Innovates;
                Award ID: Alberta Innovates Postgraduate Fellowship
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: University of Calgary;
                Award ID: Eyes High Postdoctoral Fellowship
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                open-peer-review, Open Peer Review
                clinical-microbiology, Clinical Microbiology
                Custom metadata
                September/October 2022

                acute gastroenteritis,diagnostic stewardship,decision support,enteric pathogen

                Comments

                Comment on this article