{Reference Type}: Journal Article {Title}: An international consensus definition for contextual factors: findings from a nominal group technique. {Author}: Cook CE;Bailliard A;Bent JA;Bialosky JE;Carlino E;Colloca L;Esteves JE;Newell D;Palese A;Reed WR;Vilardaga JP;Rossettini G; {Journal}: Front Psychol {Volume}: 14 {Issue}: 0 {Year}: 2023 {Factor}: 4.232 {DOI}: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1178560 {Abstract}: UNASSIGNED: Emerging literature suggests contextual factors are important components of therapeutic encounters and may substantially influence clinical outcomes of a treatment intervention. At present, a single consensus definition of contextual factors, which is universal across all health-related conditions is lacking. The objective of this study was to create a consensus definition of contextual factors to better refine this concept for clinicians and researchers.
UNASSIGNED: The study used a multi-stage virtual Nominal Group Technique (vNGT) to create and rank contextual factor definitions. Nominal group techniques are a form of consensus-based research, and are beneficial for identifying problems, exploring solutions and establishing priorities.
UNASSIGNED: International.
UNASSIGNED: The initial stages of the vNGT resulted in the creation of 14 independent contextual factor definitions. After a prolonged discussion period, the initial definitions were heavily modified, and 12 final definitions were rank ordered by the vNGT participants from first to last.
UNASSIGNED: The 10 international vNGT participants had a variety of clinical backgrounds and research specializations and were all specialists in contextual factors research.
UNASSIGNED: A sixth round was used to identify a final consensus, which reflected the complexity of contextual factors and included three primary domains: (1) an overall definition; (2) qualifiers that serve as examples of the key areas of the definition; and (3) how contextual factors may influence clinical outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Our consensus definition of contextual factors seeks to improve the understanding and communication between clinicians and researchers. These are especially important in recognizing their potential role in moderating and/or mediating clinical outcomes.