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.

UNASSIGNED: Clinically integrated teaching (CIT) is an effective approach for promoting evidence-based practice (EBP) competencies among medical students. Challenges towards the implementation of CIT in rehabilitation curricula include educators\' different conceptualizations of EBP, the perceived complexity of EBP and the boundaries between the academic and the clinical setting. This study aimed to identify tailored strategies to implement in rehabilitation programs and their affiliated clinical sites to support the development of EBP competencies among students in occupational therapy (OT), physical therapy (PT) and speech-language pathology (S-LP).
UNASSIGNED: Nominal group technique (NGT) with stakeholders from three rehabilitation programs in Canada, offering the professional master\'s in OT and PT (n = 35 participants) and in S-LP (n = 8).
UNASSIGNED: The top two strategies identified in the OT/PT NGT were: 1) Developing a flexible definition of EBP that recognizes its complexity; 2) Providing clinicians with more access to the teaching content by pairing faculty with preceptors. The top two strategies identified in the S-LP NGT were: 1) Providing students with opportunities for decision-making with experienced clinicians; 2) Increasing interactions between faculty and preceptors using formal group meetings.
UNASSIGNED: Findings laid foundations for future integrated knowledge translation projects to collaboratively implement, and test identified strategies.
Rehabilitation professions including occupational therapy, physical therapy and speech-language pathology acknowledge the importance of evidence-based practice (EBP).Current challenges in the teaching of EBP among rehabilitation students include educators’ different conceptualizations of EBP, the perceived complexity of EBP, and the boundaries between the academic and the clinical setting.This study shows that increasing interactions between faculty and preceptors, for instance through an online community of practice, constitutes a stakeholder-endorsed priority to advance EBP education in rehabilitation.

This study aimed to develop a measure of contributory factors to safety incidents in care homes to be completed by residents and/or their unpaid carers.
Care home residents are particularly vulnerable to patient safety incidents, due to higher likelihood of frailty, multimorbidity and cognitive decline. However, despite residents and their carers wanting to be involved in safety initiatives, there are few mechanisms for them to contribute and make meaningful safety improvements to practice.
We developed 73 evidence-based items from synthesis and existing measures, which we presented to a panel of stakeholders (residents/carers, health/social care professionals and researchers). We used two online rounds of Delphi to generate consensus (80%) on items important to include in the Resident Measure of Safety in Care Homes (RMOS); a consensus meeting was later held. The draft RMOS developed through the Delphi was presented to participants during \'Think Aloud\' interviews using cognitive testing techniques.
The 29-item RMOS was developed. Forty-three participants completed Delphi round 1, and 27 participants completed round 2, 11 participants attended the consensus meeting and 12 \'Think Aloud\' interviews were conducted. Of the 73 original items, 42 items that did not meet consensus in Delphi round 1 were presented in round 2. After the consensus meeting, it was agreed that 35 items would comprise the RMOS questionnaire and were presented in the \'Think Aloud\' interviews. Participants suggested numerous changes to items mostly to improve comprehension and ability to answer.
We have a developed an evidence-based RMOS, with good face validity, to assess contributory factors to safety in care homes from a resident/carer perspective. Future work will involve psychometrically testing the items in a pilot and developing a complementary simplified, dementia-friendly version to promote inclusivity.
Four patient and public contributors worked with researchers to develop the online questionnaires. Patients (residents) and carers participated on the consensus panel. One member of the research team is an expert by lived experience and was involved in design and analysis decisions. The item list and instructions for the questionnaires were reviewed for face validity, understanding and acceptability by a patient and public involvement group and modified.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Trials involving adults who lack capacity to provide consent rely on proxy or surrogate decision-makers, usually a family member, to make decisions about participation. Interventions to enhance proxy decisions about trial participation are now being developed. However, a lack of standardised outcome measures limits evaluation of these interventions. The aim of this study was to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating interventions to improve proxy decisions about trial participation.
METHODS: We used established methods to develop the COS including a consensus study with key stakeholder groups comprising those who will use the COS in research (researchers and healthcare professionals) and patients or their representatives. Following a scoping review to identify candidate items, we used a modified two-round Delphi survey to achieve consensus on core outcomes, with equivocal items taken to a consensus meeting for discussion. The COS was finalised following an online consensus meeting in October 2020.
RESULTS: A total of 28 UK stakeholders (5 researchers, 10 trialists, 3 patient/family representatives, 7 recruiters and 3 advisors/approvers) participated in the online Delphi survey to rank candidate items from the scoping review (n = 36) and additional items proposed by participants (n = 1). Items were broadly grouped into three categories: how family members make decisions, their experiences of making decisions, and the personal aspects that influence the decision. Following the Delphi survey, 27 items were included and ten items exhibited no consensus which required discussion at the consensus meeting. Sixteen participants attended the meeting, including additional patient/family representatives invited to increase representation from this key group (n = 2). We reached consensus for the inclusion of 28 outcome items, including one selected at the consensus meeting.
CONCLUSIONS: The study identified outcomes that should be measured as a minimum in all evaluations of interventions to enhance proxy decisions about trials. These relate to the process of decision-making, proxies\' experience of decision-making, and factors that influence decision-making such as understanding. Further work with people with impairing conditions and their families is needed to explore their views about the COS and to identify appropriate outcome measures and timing of measurement.
BACKGROUND: The study is registered on the COMET database ( https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1409 ).

As the development of core outcome sets (COS) increases, guidance for developing and reporting high-quality COS continues to evolve; however, a number of methodological uncertainties still remain. The objectives of this study were: (1) to explore the impact of including patient interviews in developing a COS, (2) to examine the impact of using a 5-point versus a 9-point rating scale during Delphi consensus methods on outcome selection and (3) to inform and contribute to COS development methodology by advancing the evidence base on COS development techniques.
Semi-structured patient interviews and a nested randomised controlled parallel group trial as part of the Pelvic Girdle Pain Core Outcome Set project (PGP-COS). Patient interviews, as an adjunct to a systematic review of outcomes reported in previous studies, were undertaken to identify preliminary outcomes for including in a Delphi consensus survey. In the Delphi survey, participants were randomised (1:1) to a 5-point or 9-point rating scale for rating the importance of the list of preliminary outcomes.
Four of the eight patient interview derived outcomes were included in the preliminary COS, however, none of these outcomes were included in the final PGP-COS. The 5-point rating scale resulted in twice as many outcomes reaching consensus after the 3-round Delphi survey compared to the 9-point scale. Consensus on all five outcomes included in the final PGP-COS was achieved by participants allocated the 5-point rating scale, whereas consensus on four of these was achieved by those using the 9-point scale.
Using patient interviews to identify preliminary outcomes as an adjunct to conducting a systematic review of outcomes measured in the literature did not appear to influence outcome selection in developing the COS in this study. The use of different rating scales in a Delphi survey, however, did appear to impact on outcome selection. The 5-point scale demonstrated greater congruency than the 9-point scale with the outcomes included in the final PGP-COS. Future research to substantiate our findings and to explore the impact of other rating scales on outcome selection during COS development, however, is warranted.

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence that collaborative practice in mental healthcare improves outcomes for patients. The concept of collaborative practice can include collaboration between healthcare workers of different professional backgrounds and collaboration with patients, families and communities. Most models of collaborative practice were developed in Western and high-income countries and are not easily translatable to settings which are culturally diverse and lower in resources. This project aimed to develop a set of recommendations to improve collaborative practice in Malaysia.
METHODS: In the first phase, qualitative research was conducted to better understand collaboration in a psychiatric hospital (previously published). In the second phase a local hospital level committee from the same hospital was created to act on the qualitative research and create a set of recommendations to improve collaborative practice at the hospital for the hospital. Some of these recommendations were implemented, where feasible and the outcomes discussed. These recommendations were then sent to a nationwide Delphi panel. These committees consisted of healthcare staff of various professions, patients and carers.
RESULTS: The Delphi panel reached consensus after three rounds. The recommendations include ways to improve collaborative problem solving and decision making in the hospital, ways to improve the autonomy and relatedness of patients, carers and staff and ways to improve the levels of resources (e.g. skills training in staff, allowing people with lived experience of mental disorder to contribute).
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the Delphi method is a feasible method of developing recommendations and guidelines in Malaysia and allowed a wider range of stakeholders to contribute than traditional methods of developing guidelines and recommendations.Trial registration Registered in the National Medical Research Register, Malaysia, NMRR-13-308-14792.