Dorien De Meyer1, Jan Kottner2, Hilde Beele3, Jochen Schmitt4, Toni Lange4, Ann Van Hecke5, Sofie Verhaeghe6, Dimitri Beeckman7. 1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Skin Integrity Research Group (SKINT), University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. 2. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Skin Integrity Research Group (SKINT), University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Clinical Research Center for Hair and Skin Science, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. 3. Department of Dermatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 4. Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany. 5. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Skin Integrity Research Group (SKINT), University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Nursing Department, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium. 6. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Skin Integrity Research Group (SKINT), University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Department Health Care, VIVES University College, Roeselare, Belgium. 7. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Skin Integrity Research Group (SKINT), University Centre for Nursing and Midwifery, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), Dublin, Ireland; School of Health Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. Electronic address: Dimitri.Beeckman@UGent.be.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare two different rating scales within one Delphi study for defining consensus in core outcome set development and to explore the influence of consensus criteria on the outcome selection. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled parallel group trial with 1:1 allocation within the first Delphi round of the Core Outcome Set in the Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis project. Outcomes were rated on a three-point or nine-point Likert scale. Decisions about which outcomes to retain were determined by commonly used consensus criteria (i.e., [combinations of] proportions with restricted ranges, central tendency within a specific range, and decrease in variance). RESULTS: Fifty-seven participants (group 1 = 28, group 2 = 29) rated 58 outcomes. The use of the nine-point scale resulted in almost twice as many outcomes being rated as "critical" compared with the three-point scale (24 vs. 13). Stricter criteria and combining criteria led to less outcomes being identified as "critical". CONCLUSION: The format of rating scales in Delphi studies for core outcome set development and the definition of the consensus criteria influence outcome selection. The use of the nine-point scale might be recommended to inform the consensus process for a subsequent rating or face-to-face meeting. The three-point scale might be preferred when determining final consensus.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare two different rating scales within one Delphi study for defining consensus in core outcome set development and to explore the influence of consensus criteria on the outcome selection. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized controlled parallel group trial with 1:1 allocation within the first Delphi round of the Core Outcome Set in the Incontinence-Associated Dermatitis project. Outcomes were rated on a three-point or nine-point Likert scale. Decisions about which outcomes to retain were determined by commonly used consensus criteria (i.e., [combinations of] proportions with restricted ranges, central tendency within a specific range, and decrease in variance). RESULTS: Fifty-seven participants (group 1 = 28, group 2 = 29) rated 58 outcomes. The use of the nine-point scale resulted in almost twice as many outcomes being rated as "critical" compared with the three-point scale (24 vs. 13). Stricter criteria and combining criteria led to less outcomes being identified as "critical". CONCLUSION: The format of rating scales in Delphi studies for core outcome set development and the definition of the consensus criteria influence outcome selection. The use of the nine-point scale might be recommended to inform the consensus process for a subsequent rating or face-to-face meeting. The three-point scale might be preferred when determining final consensus.
Authors: Howard Ryland; Jonathan Cook; Rob Ferris; Sarah Markham; Christian Sales; Raymond Fitzpatrick; Seena Fazel Journal: Psychol Crime Law Date: 2021-08-23
Authors: Liina Mansukoski; Alexandra Albert; Yassaman Vafai; Chris Cartwright; Aamnah Rahman; Jessica Sheringham; Bridget Lockyer; Tiffany C Yang; Philip Garnett; Maria Bryant Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Christopher P Millward; Terri S Armstrong; Heather Barrington; Sabrina Bell; Andrew R Brodbelt; Helen Bulbeck; Anna Crofton; Linda Dirven; Theo Georgious; Paul L Grundy; Abdurrahman I Islim; Mohsen Javadpour; Sumirat M Keshwara; Shelli D Koszdin; Anthony G Marson; Michael W McDermott; Torstein R Meling; Kathy Oliver; Puneet Plaha; Matthias Preusser; Thomas Santarius; Nisaharan Srikandarajah; Martin J B Taphoorn; Carole Turner; Colin Watts; Michael Weller; Paula R Williamson; Gelareh Zadeh; Amir H Zamanipoor Najafabadi; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-09 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: T Tellum; J Naftalin; C Chapron; M Dueholm; S-W Guo; M Hirsch; E R Larby; M G Munro; E Saridogan; Z M van der Spuy; D Jurkovic Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 6.353