Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for co-production and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for coproduction and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

Spinal cord injury (SCI) research and policy decisions are rarely made in partnership with people with SCI, making them less relevant, applicable, and used by those whom the decisions are intended to support. Across disciplines, consensus methods have been promoted as a viable solution for supporting shared research and policy-based decision-making. In this paper, we describe a partnered approach between academic researchers and the Ontario SCI Alliance, a non-profit, SCI community mobilization network to co-develop and co-disseminate a community-based consensus exercise. The community-based consensus exercise included two modified Delphi surveys and one in-person retreat. The partnership\'s goal with this exercise was to facilitate shared decision-making for the development of their upcoming strategic plan. We then interviewed partners and participants from the Delphi and in-person retreat to discuss successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the exercise. Survey 1 was disseminated to over 2,500 members of the Ontario SCI community and received 374 responses (276 coming from people with SCI). Survey 2 had 118 responses, with 87 coming from people with SCI. The retreat had 73 attendees, including people with SCI, family/friends of people with SCI, clinicians, researchers, and SCI community and research organization staff/volunteers. The retreat included a presentation of the survey results, a clinician/researcher panel, and externally-facilitated working groups. All survey responses and retreat materials were synthesized. Using the synthesized feedback, the Ontario SCI Alliance was able to implement several changes for the Ontario SCI community, including higher-quality primary care experiences (reduced wait times, more accessible examining rooms), the development of a wound care strategy with the Ontario government, and an advocacy campaign for public coverage for catheters and urinary care supplies. From the five interviews conducted, five themes were co-constructed regarding the successes, challenges, and lessons learned from the exercise: (1) Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Accessibility; (2) Partnership; (3) Design Considerations; (4) Transparency and Clarity in Communication; and (5) Sustainability. Findings from this community case study demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a community-level consensus exercise among an equity-deserving group while providing detailed guidance for how to ensure future research and policy-based decision-making is shared across diverse knowledge users.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common condition causing disability and high healthcare costs. Alberta faces challenges with unnecessary referrals to specialists and long wait times. A province-wide standardized clinical care pathway based on evidence-based best practices can improve efficiency, reduce wait times, and enhance patient outcomes. Implementing such pathways has shown success in other areas of healthcare in Alberta. This study developed a clinical decision-making pathway to standardize care and minimize uncertainty in assessment, diagnosis, and management.
METHODS: A systematic rapid review identified existing tools and evidence that could support a comprehensive LBP clinical decision-making tool. Forty-seven healthcare professionals participated in four rounds of a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on the assessment, diagnosis, and management of patients presenting to primary care with LBP in Alberta, Canada. This project was a collaborative effort between Alberta Health Services\' Bone and Joint Health Strategic Clinical Network (BJHSCN) and the Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute (ABJHI).
RESULTS: A province-wide expert panel consisting of professionals from different health disciplines and regions collaborated to develop an LBP clinical decision-making tool. This tool presents clinical care pathways for acute, subacute, and chronic LBP. It also provides guidance for history-taking, physical examination, patient education, and management.
CONCLUSIONS: This clinical decision-making tool will help to standardize care, provide guidance on the diagnosis and management of LBP, and assist in clinical decision-making for primary care providers in both public and private sectors.

UNASSIGNED: Brachial plexus birth injuries (BPBI) can have lifelong effects on the development and functional use of the upper extremity. Currently there is no agreement with regards to what patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures should be used. Therefore, the ability to compare the effects of treatment between individuals and institutions is challenging. This study aimed to achieve consensus among clinicians on the use of PRO measures within this patient group to allow for improved comparison of treatments and outcomes in the future.
UNASSIGNED: Online, a 3 round Delphi survey was completed by 35 international multi-disciplinary specialist centers.
UNASSIGNED: All respondents (100%) agreed that PRO measures are useful for clinical evaluation and patient treatment. None of the outcome measures scored >75% agreement for ability to assess responsiveness and current state in children with BPBI as most outcome measures were judged as not specific for BPBI. Additionally, participant centers were asked their perspective on the best available PRO option for each of the 3 categories: functional use of the upper limb, quality of life and pain. This resulted in endorsement by the participant centers of the Brachial Plexus Outcome Measure - Self-Evaluation, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory, and Visual Analogue Scale/Brief Pain Inventory respectively.
UNASSIGNED: International specialists in BPBI agree that PRO measures are important to use both clinically and in research in children aged 5 years and above.
Patient-reported outcome measures were judged as useful both in clinic and in research for brachial plexus birth injury (BPBI), according to a panel of specialized centers.Currently available outcome measures were judged as not specific for BPBI.The panel endorsed the following measures as best available: the Brachial Plexus Outcome Measure – Self-Evaluation scale for functional evaluation, the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory for disease-related quality of life and the Faces Pain Scale - Revised/Visual Analogue Scale/Brief Pain Inventory for pain.

Phylogenetic analysis frequently leads to the creation of many phylogenetic trees, either from using multiple genes or methods, or through bootstrapping or Bayesian analysis. A consensus tree is often used to summarize what the trees have in common. Consensus networks were introduced to also allow the visualization of the main incompatibilities among the trees. However, in practice, such networks often contain a large number of nodes and edges, and can be non-planar, making them difficult to interpret. Here, we introduce the new concept of a phylogenetic consensus outline, which provides a planar visualization of incompatibilities in the input trees, without the complexities of a consensus network. Furthermore, we present an effective algorithm for its computation. We demonstrate its usage and explore how it compares to other methods on a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of languages using data from a published database and on multiple gene trees from a published study on water lilies.

OBJECTIVE: Performance assessments are essential to tracking and improving quality in health care systems. Key aspects of the care process that act as indicators must be measured in order to gain an in-depth understanding of a care unit\'s operation. Without standardized quality indicators (QIs), it is difficult to characterize and compare the abilities of institutions to achieve excellence. The aim of this study is to reach a consensus among glaucoma specialists concerning the development of a set of QIs to assess the performance of glaucoma care units.
METHODS: A two-round Delphi technique was performed among glaucoma specialists in Portugal, using a 7-point Likert scale. Fifty-three initial statements (comprising process, structure, and outcome indicators) were evaluated and participants had to agree on which ones would be part of the final set of QIs.
RESULTS: By the end of both rounds, 28 glaucoma specialists reached consensus on 30/53 (57%) statements, including 19 (63%) process indicators (mainly relating to the proper implementation of complementary exams and the setting of follow-up intervals), 6 (20%) structure indicators, and 5 (17%) outcome indicators. Of the indicators that were part of the final list, functional and structural aspects of glaucoma progression and the availability of surgical/laser procedures were the most prevalent.
CONCLUSIONS: A set of 30 QIs for measuring the performance of glaucoma units was developed using a consensus methodology involving experts in the field. Their use as measurement standards would provide important information about unit operations and allow further implementation of quality improvements.

To address methodological deficiencies in published randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, this study has developed a core outcome set to guide future research in ectopic pregnancy (EP).
To identify potential outcomes, we performed a comprehensive literature review and interviews with individuals with lived experience in EP. Potential core outcomes were then entered into a 3-round Delphi survey. A total of 154 participants from 6 continents, comprising health care professionals, researchers, and individuals with lived experience in EP, completed all 3 rounds of the Delphi survey. Outcomes were prioritized at 3 consensus development meetings, and recommendations were developed on how to report these outcomes where possible.
Not applicable.
Health care professionals, researchers, and individuals with lived experience in EP.
Not applicable.
Consensus for inclusion in core outcome set.
Six outcomes reached full consensus, including treatment success, resolution time, the number of additional interventions, adverse events, mortality and severe morbidity, and treatment satisfaction.
The core outcome set with 6 outcomes for EP will help standardize reporting of clinical trials, facilitate implementation of findings into clinical practice, and enhance patient-centered care.

The aim of the study was to reach consensus on modifiable risk factors for a novel system of care to address Manifestations of Frailty in hospitalized older adults.
Consensus study.
A modified nominal group technique, incorporating expert group face-to-face interaction, review of existing evidence and pre/post-meeting questionnaire completion was undertaken November 2019-February 2020.
Seventy-one risk factors, within seven risk factor domains (pain, medication, fluid and nutrition intake, mobility, elimination, infection, additional patient factors) were considered. It was agreed that 44 risk factors incorporating patient, organizational and environmental risk factors were modifiable and should be included in a novel system of care.

BACKGROUND: Single-sided deafness (SSD) has functional, psychological, and social consequences. Interventions for adults with SSD include hearing aids and auditory implants. Benefits and harms (outcome domains) of these interventions are until now reported inconsistently in clinical trials. Inconsistency in reporting outcome measures prevents meaningful comparisons or syntheses of trial results. The Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) international initiative used structured communication techniques to achieve consensus among healthcare users and professionals working in the field of SSD. The novel contribution is a set of core outcome domains that experts agree are critically important to assess in all clinical trials of SSD interventions.
METHODS: A long list of candidate outcome domains compiled from a systematic review and published qualitative data, informed the content of a two-round online Delphi survey. Overall, 308 participants from 29 countries were enrolled. Of those, 233 participants completed both rounds of the survey and scored each outcome domain on a 9-point scale. The set of core outcome domains was finalised via a web-based consensus meeting with 12 participants. Votes involved all stakeholder groups, with an approximate 2:1 ratio of professionals to healthcare users participating in the Delphi survey, and a 1:1 ratio participating in the consensus meeting.
RESULTS: The first round of the survey listed 44 potential outcome domains, organised thematically. A further five outcome domains were included in Round 2 based on participant feedback. The structured voting at round 2 identified 17 candidate outcome domains which were voted on at the consensus meeting. Consensus was reached for a core outcome domain set including three outcome domains: spatial orientation, group conversations in noisy social situations, and impact on social situations. Seventy-seven percent of the remaining Delphi participants agreed with this core outcome domain set.
CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the internationally agreed core outcome domain set would promote consistent assessment and reporting of outcomes that are meaningful and important to all relevant stakeholders. This consistency will in turn enable comparison of outcomes reported across clinical trials comparing SSD interventions in adults and reduce research waste. Further research will determine how those outcome domains should best be measured.