3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identification and Prioritization of Canadian Society of Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline Topics With Multidisciplinary Stakeholders and People Living With Kidney Disease: A Clinical Research Protocol

      research-article

      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

          Background:

          Despite efforts to provide evidence-based care for people living with kidney disease, health care provider goals and priorities are often misaligned with those of individuals with lived experience of disease. Coupled with competing interests of time, resources, and an abundance of suitable guideline topics, identifying and prioritizing areas of focus for the Canadian nephrology community with a patient-oriented perspective is necessary and important. Similar priority-setting exercises have been undertaken to establish research priorities for kidney disease and to standardize outcomes for kidney disease research and clinical care; however, research priorities are distinct from priorities for guideline development. Inclusion of people living with health conditions in the selection and prioritization of guideline topics is suggested by patient engagement frameworks, though the process to operationalizing this is variable. We propose that the Canadian Society of Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline Committee (CSN CPGC) takes the opportunity at this juncture to incorporate evidence-based prioritization exercises with involvement of people living with kidney disease and their caregivers to inform future guideline activities. In this protocol, we describe our planned research methods to address this.

          Objective:

          To establish consensus-based guideline topic priorities for the CSN CPGC using a modified Delphi survey with involvement of multidisciplinary stakeholders, including people living with kidney disease and their caregivers.

          Study design:

          Protocol for a Modified Delphi Survey.

          Setting:

          Pilot-tested surveys will be distributed via email and conducted using the online platform SurveyMonkey, in both French and English.

          Participants:

          We will establish a group of multidisciplinary clinical and research stakeholders (both within and outside CSN membership) from Canada, in addition to people living with kidney disease and/or their caregivers.

          Methods:

          A comprehensive literature search will be conducted to generate an initial list of guideline topics, which will be organized into three main categories: (1) International nephrology-focused guidelines that may require Canadian commentary, (2) Non-nephrology specific guidelines from Canada that may require CSN commentary, and (3) Novel topics for guideline development. Participants will engage in a multi-round Modified Delphi Survey to prioritize a set of “important guideline topics.”

          Measures:

          Consensus will be reached for an item based on both median score on the Likert-type scale (≥ 7) and the percentage agreement (≥ 75%); the Delphi process will be complete when consensus is reached on each item. Guideline topics will then be given a priority score calculated from the total Likert ratings across participants, adjusted for the number of participants.

          Limitations:

          Potential limitations include participant response rates and compliance to survey completion.

          Conclusions:

          We propose to incorporate evidence-based prioritization exercises with the engagement of people living with kidney disease and their caregivers to establish consensus-based guideline topics and inform future guidelines activities of the CSN CPGC.

          Abrégé

          Contexte:

          Malgré les efforts déployés pour fournir aux personnes atteintes de néphropathies des soins fondés sur les données probantes, il s’avère que les objectifs et priorités des prestataires de soins de santé sont souvent mal alignés avec ceux des personnes qui ont une expérience concrète de la maladie. Compte tenu des intérêts concurrents en matière de temps et de ressources, et de l’abondance de sujets pertinents pour l’élaboration de lignes directrices, il est nécessaire et important d’identifier et de hiérarchiser les domaines prioritaires pour la communauté néphrologique canadienne dans une perspective orientée vers le patient. Des exercices semblables pour la définition des priorités ont été entrepris afin d’établir les priorités de la recherche sur les maladies rénales et normaliser les soins cliniques et les résultats de la recherche sur les maladies rénales. Or, les priorités de la recherche diffèrent des priorités pour l’élaboration des lignes directrices. Bien que les façons de procéder varient, les cadres d’engagement des patients suggèrent que des personnes vivant avec des problèmes de santé soient incluses dans la sélection et la hiérarchisation des sujets des lignes directrices. À cet égard, nous proposons que le Comité sur les lignes directrices de pratique clinique de la Société canadienne de néphrologie (CSN CPGC — Canadian Society of Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline Committee) profite de l’occasion pour intégrer des exercices d’établissement des priorités fondés sur des données probantes et impliquer des personnes vivant avec une néphropathie et des soignants afin de guider les futures activités d’élaboration de lignes directrices. Dans ce protocole, nous décrivons la méthodologie de recherche que nous suivrons pour y remédier.

          Objectif:

          Établir des priorités consensuelles en matière de sujets de lignes directrices pour le CSN CPGC à l’aide d’une enquête Delphi modifiée et avec la participation d’intervenants multidisciplinaires, notamment des personnes vivant avec une néphropathie et leurs soignants.

          Conception:

          Protocole pour une enquête Delphi modifiée.

          Cadre:

          Des sondages pilotes, en anglais et en français, seront distribués par courriel et réalisés à l’aide de la plateforme en ligne SurveyMonkey.

          Participants:

          Nous créerons un groupe d’intervenants multidisciplinaires canadiens œuvrant en clinique et en recherche (à la fois des membres et des non membres de la SCN) auquel s’ajouteront des personnes atteintes d’une néphropathie et/ou leurs soignants.

          Méthodologie:

          Une recherche exhaustive sera effectuée dans la littérature afin de constituer une première liste de sujets de lignes directrices, laquelle sera divisée en trois catégories principales: (1) lignes directrices internationales axées sur la néphrologie et pouvant nécessiter des commentaires canadiens, (2) lignes directrices canadiennes non spécifiquement liées à la néphrologie et pouvant nécessiter des commentaires de la SCN, (3) nouveaux sujets pour l’élaboration de lignes directrices. Les participants s’engageront dans une enquête Delphi modifiée à plusieurs tours afin de hiérarchiser un ensemble de « sujets importants pour l’élaboration de lignes directrices ».

          Mesures:

          Un consensus sera atteint pour un énoncé s’il atteint à la fois un score médian (≥7) sur l’échelle de Likert et le pourcentage d’accord établi (≥ 75 %); le processus Delphi sera terminé lorsque le consensus sera atteint pour chaque énoncé. Les sujets pour l’élaboration de lignes directrices recevront ensuite une cote de priorité calculée à partir du total des scores des participants sur l’échelle Likert et ajustée en fonction du nombre de participants.

          Limites:

          L’étude pourrait être limitée par le taux de réponse des participants et leur engagement à compléter toutes les étapes de l’enquête.

          Conclusion:

          Nous proposons d’intégrer des exercices de définition des priorités fondés sur des données probantes et impliquant la participation de personnes vivant avec une néphropathie et de leurs soignants afin de déterminer des sujets consensuels pour l’élaboration de lignes directrices et de guider les futures activités du CSN CPGC en lien avec ce processus.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

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

          AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques

            Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how ‘consensus’ is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of ‘experts.’ Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.
              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

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Can J Kidney Health Dis
                Can J Kidney Health Dis
                CJK
                spcjk
                Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                2054-3581
                24 November 2023
                2023
                : 10
                : 20543581231207142
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Western University, London, ON, Canada
                [3 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [4 ]Patient and Community Engagement Research Unit, O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
                [5 ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada
                [6 ]Kidney Research Institute Nova Scotia, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada
                [7 ]Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [8 ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada
                [9 ]Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [10 ]Departments of Internal Medicine and Population Health, The University of Kansas Health System, Kansas City, USA
                [11 ]Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
                [12 ]Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
                [13 ]O’Brien Institute for Public Health, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
                [14 ]Libin Cardiovascular Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
                Author notes
                [*]Tyrone G. Harrison, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Health Sciences Centre Building, 3330 Hospital Drive Northwest, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1, Canada. Email: tgharris@ 123456ucalgary.ca
                [*]

                Senior Author.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0244-6631
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1076-770X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1105-3418
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3559-3531
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1068-8673
                Article
                10.1177_20543581231207142
                10.1177/20543581231207142
                10676059
                8cfc08a4-f908-474f-9bc5-89f14f771c07
                © The Author(s) 2023

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 21 December 2022
                : 3 September 2023
                Categories
                Clinical Research Protocol
                Custom metadata
                January-December 2023
                ts1

                clinical practice guideline,kidney disease,patient engagement,priority setting,topic prioritization

                Comments

                Comment on this article