Improving Delphi Process in Acupuncture Decision Making: Overall Descriptions and Quality Assessment of Delphi Reports.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Pub Date : 2024-08-30 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JMDH.S481947
Yi-Yang Sun, Peng-Fei Wang, Gui-Rong Yang, Dong-Qing Du, Chun-Jing Li, Zi-Jun Mu, Yu-Xia Ma, Na Zhang
{"title":"Improving Delphi Process in Acupuncture Decision Making: Overall Descriptions and Quality Assessment of Delphi Reports.","authors":"Yi-Yang Sun, Peng-Fei Wang, Gui-Rong Yang, Dong-Qing Du, Chun-Jing Li, Zi-Jun Mu, Yu-Xia Ma, Na Zhang","doi":"10.2147/JMDH.S481947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical acupuncture decisions are highly operator-dependent and require physician-patient interactions. The Delphi method allows subjective factors such as expert experience and preference of patients to be taken into account in clinical decision making, which is particularly applicable to acupuncture. Currently, the Delphi method is widely used to support clinical decisions in acupuncture. Therefore, it is necessary to provide high-quality and complete descriptions of the Delphi process when making clinical decisions. This study aims to evaluate the quality of the Delphi process in acupuncture, facilitate its standardization and rigor for further clinical decision making in acupuncture.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Articles sourced from six databases were searched systematically to assess the quality of the Delphi consensus process based on the standards for conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES). Descriptive statistics and analysis were presented according to the percentage of each item. Five-score Likert scale was used to evaluate the reporting quality of four domains as well as each item in CREDES by two independent researchers, combined with ICC-value to assess the consistency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 37 qualified articles were included according to eligibility criteria. As for the low reporting rate, the item \"External validation\" was reported as the lowest positive rate at 32.43% and the item \"Prevention of bias\" was 48.65%. The item \"Adequacy of conclusions\", \"Definition and attainment of consensus\", and \"Discussion of limitations\" were reported at a positive ratio of 62.16%, 64.86%, and 67.57% individually. The average scores of the four domains based on CREDES from highest to lowest were, respectively, as follows: planning and design (68.75%), reporting (66.07%), rationale for the choice of the Delphi technique (65.54%), study conduct (45.10%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The reporting quality of the Delphi consensus process in acupuncture is acceptable currently, but the reporting rate on some items is still low. Further standardization, including either clearer checklists or study reports, should be developed and strengthened to guide clinical decisions in acupuncture.</p>","PeriodicalId":16357,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11370779/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S481947","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical acupuncture decisions are highly operator-dependent and require physician-patient interactions. The Delphi method allows subjective factors such as expert experience and preference of patients to be taken into account in clinical decision making, which is particularly applicable to acupuncture. Currently, the Delphi method is widely used to support clinical decisions in acupuncture. Therefore, it is necessary to provide high-quality and complete descriptions of the Delphi process when making clinical decisions. This study aims to evaluate the quality of the Delphi process in acupuncture, facilitate its standardization and rigor for further clinical decision making in acupuncture.

Methods: Articles sourced from six databases were searched systematically to assess the quality of the Delphi consensus process based on the standards for conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES). Descriptive statistics and analysis were presented according to the percentage of each item. Five-score Likert scale was used to evaluate the reporting quality of four domains as well as each item in CREDES by two independent researchers, combined with ICC-value to assess the consistency.

Results: A total of 37 qualified articles were included according to eligibility criteria. As for the low reporting rate, the item "External validation" was reported as the lowest positive rate at 32.43% and the item "Prevention of bias" was 48.65%. The item "Adequacy of conclusions", "Definition and attainment of consensus", and "Discussion of limitations" were reported at a positive ratio of 62.16%, 64.86%, and 67.57% individually. The average scores of the four domains based on CREDES from highest to lowest were, respectively, as follows: planning and design (68.75%), reporting (66.07%), rationale for the choice of the Delphi technique (65.54%), study conduct (45.10%).

Conclusion: The reporting quality of the Delphi consensus process in acupuncture is acceptable currently, but the reporting rate on some items is still low. Further standardization, including either clearer checklists or study reports, should be developed and strengthened to guide clinical decisions in acupuncture.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改进针灸决策中的德尔菲过程:德尔菲报告的总体描述和质量评估。
背景:针灸临床决策高度依赖于操作者,需要医患互动。德尔菲法可在临床决策中考虑专家经验和患者偏好等主观因素,尤其适用于针灸。目前,德尔菲法被广泛应用于针灸临床决策支持。因此,在进行临床决策时,有必要对德尔菲法过程进行高质量的完整描述。本研究旨在评估针灸中德尔菲过程的质量,促进其标准化和严谨性,以进一步推动针灸临床决策的制定:方法:系统检索了六个数据库中的文章,根据德尔菲研究的开展和报告标准(CREDES)评估德尔菲共识过程的质量。根据每个项目的百分比进行描述性统计和分析。两位独立研究人员采用五分李克特量表对 CREDES 中四个领域和每个项目的报告质量进行评估,并结合 ICC 值评估一致性:结果:共有 37 篇符合资格标准的文章被纳入研究。在低报告率方面,"外部验证 "项目的阳性率最低,为 32.43%,"防止偏倚 "项目的阳性率为 48.65%。结论的充分性"、"定义和达成共识 "和 "局限性讨论 "三项的阳性率分别为 62.16%、64.86% 和 67.57%。基于 CREDES 的四个领域的平均得分从高到低分别为:规划与设计(68.75%)、报告(66.07%)、选择德尔菲技术的理由(65.54%)、研究实施(45.10%):结论:目前针灸德尔菲共识过程的报告质量可以接受,但某些项目的报告率仍然较低。应制定和加强进一步的标准化,包括更清晰的核对表或研究报告,以指导针灸临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare Nursing-General Nursing
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
3.00%
发文量
287
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare (JMDH) aims to represent and publish research in healthcare areas delivered by practitioners of different disciplines. This includes studies and reviews conducted by multidisciplinary teams as well as research which evaluates or reports the results or conduct of such teams or healthcare processes in general. The journal covers a very wide range of areas and we welcome submissions from practitioners at all levels and from all over the world. Good healthcare is not bounded by person, place or time and the journal aims to reflect this. The JMDH is published as an open-access journal to allow this wide range of practical, patient relevant research to be immediately available to practitioners who can access and use it immediately upon publication.
期刊最新文献
Integrated Community-Based Care for Dependent Older People Community Participation in Preparation for Recurrent Outbreaks of COVID-19. A Review of the Application of Myofascial Release Therapy in the Treatment of Diseases. Construction and Evaluation of a Predictive Model for Grassroots Nurses’ Risk Perception of “Internet + Nursing Services”: A Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study Community Pharmacists’ Readiness for Breast Cancer Mammogram Promotion: A National Survey from Jordan Adolescent Patients’Experiences of Mental Disorders Related to School Bullying [Letter]
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1