OBJECTIVE: Dementia in-patient units (DIU) are mental health wards that care for people living with dementia (PLWD) whose symptoms are causing severe distress or potential risk. DIUs look after some of the most vulnerable and unwell people in society, yet they are environments that are underresearched: a recent systematic review revealed only 36 articles worldwide relating to DIUs. To better understand research priorities in DIUs, we undertook a two-round online Delphi survey of PLWD with experience of DIUs, their carers and professionals who work in DIUs.
RESULTS: Ten research priorities were described and ranked. The top three were how to use non-pharmacological techniques to manage non-cognitive symptoms of dementia, supporting families and better understanding of how to discharge PLWD safely and healthily.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first Delphi consensus to describe DIU research priorities. This paper will help researchers focus on the areas that matter most to people who use DIUs.

OBJECTIVE: To define the essential elements of the intake questionnaire that will be a part of a larger multicenter registry for aerodigestive patients.
METHODS: A modified Delphi method was utilized to obtain consensus on the data elements that should warrant inclusion in the final research database. Patient questionnaires from the eight participating institutions were reviewed and individual elements were aggregated into 14 categories.
RESULTS: A total of 198 initial elements were voted on for inclusion. The categories included demographics, respiratory symptoms, gastrointestinal symptoms, ear nose and throat symptoms, feeding, birth history, medical history, surgical history, family history, social history, medications prior to evaluation, devices used prior to evaluation, prior diagnostic evaluations, and prior evaluation by aerodigestive team members. 83 of the 198 elements met consensus for inclusion in the final registry for an inclusion rate of 41.9 %. Three separate rounds of ranking were required to obtain consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: The aerodigestive registry is an important initiative that will help foster research and help guide future management. The intake questionnaire of the registry is a critical component of this project, and the consensus obtained during this study should help create a streamlined and efficient registry that will help all aerodigestive patients on a national level.

BACKGROUND: The safety of medication use among older adults is a growing concern, given the aging population. Despite widespread attention, the exploration of medication literacy in older adults, particularly from the perspective of information literacy, is in its nascent stages.
METHODS: This study utilized the existing literature to define medication information literacy (MIL) as a theoretical framework. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to identify the essential components of a MIL indicator system for older adults. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was then used to assign weights to each indicator.
RESULTS: The study observed relatively high response rates in both rounds of the questionnaire, which, along with expert authority coefficients (Cr) of 0.86 and 0.89, underscores the credibility and expertise of the panellists. Additionally, Kendall\'s coefficient of concordance (Kendall\'s W) ranging from 0.157 to 0.33 (p < 0.05) indicates a consensus among experts on the identified indicators. Utilizing the Delphi process, a MIL indicator system for older adults was developed, comprising five primary and 23 secondary indicators. These indicators were weighted, with medication information cognition and acquisition emerging as pivotal factors in enhancing medication literacy among older adults.
CONCLUSIONS: This study developed a MIL indicator system tailored for older adults using the Delphi approach. The findings can inform healthcare professionals in providing customized medication guidance and assist policymakers in crafting policies to enhance medication safety among older adults.
UNASSIGNED: Patient and public engagement played a pivotal role in the development of our medication information literacy indicator system for older adults. Their involvement contributed to shaping research questions, facilitating study participation, and enriching evidence interpretation. Collaborations with experts in geriatric nursing, medicine, and public health, along with discussions with caregivers and individuals with lived experience, provided invaluable insights into medication management among older adults. Their input guided our research direction and ensured the relevance and comprehensiveness of our findings.

BACKGROUND: Nominal group technique (NGT) is widely used in healthcare research to facilitate decision-making and consensus-building. Traditional NGT requires face-to-face interaction and its limitations include potential biases, logistical challenges and high costs. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a shift to virtual methods, which led to the development of virtual nominal group technique (vNGT). Aim To reflect on the use of vNGT, particularly in the context of Ghader et al (2023 ), to understand its effectiveness in overcoming the limitations of traditional NGT and on its applicability in pandemic-affected scenarios.
METHODS: This paper reviews and discusses literature on the use and effectiveness of NGT compared to other consensus-building methods and examines the emergence of vNGT in overcoming the limitations of traditional NGT. The authors also reflect on their use of vNGT in a study to identify cardiovascular research priorities in the UAE and provide details of its implementation.
CONCLUSIONS: vNGT bridges the gap between the localised nature of traditional NGT and the global reach of the Delphi technique. It allows for the inclusion of diverse participants, saves costs and offers time-efficiency. The study demonstrated vNGT\'s adaptability, with participants engaging in idea generation, discussion and prioritisation using online tools. However, challenges persist with vNGT, including reduced accessibility for certain demographics, timing issues across time zones and technical difficulties.
CONCLUSIONS: vNGT successfully integrates the interactive, consensus-building aspects of NGT with the broad reach of Delphi. It can be valuable in research and decision-making, especially in an era of increased remote collaboration.
CONCLUSIONS: vNGT can significantly impact healthcare research and policy formulation by enabling more inclusive, cost-effective and timely consensus-building processes. However, considerations for accessibility and technical support are crucial for its wider adoption and effectiveness.

Psoriasis is a chronic skin disease that negatively impacts on patient\'s life. A holistic approach integrating well-being assessment could improve disease management. Since a consensus definition of well-being in psoriasis is not available, we aim to achieve a multidisciplinary consensus on well-being definition and its components. A literature review and consultation with psoriasis patients facilitated the design of a two-round Delphi questionnaire targeting healthcare professionals and psoriasis patients. A total of 261 panellists (65.1% patients with psoriasis, 34.9% healthcare professionals) agreed on the dimensions and components that should integrate the concept of well-being: emotional dimension (78.9%) [stress (83.9%), mood disturbance (85.1%), body image (83.9%), stigma/shame (75.1%), self-esteem (77.4%) and coping/resilience (81.2%)], physical dimension (82.0%) [sleep quality (81.6%), pain/discomfort (80.8%), itching (83.5%), extracutaneous manifestations (82.8%), lesions in visible areas (84.3%), lesions in functional areas (85.8%), and sex life (78.2%)], social dimension (79.5%) [social relationships (80.8%), leisure/recreational activities (80.3%), support from family/friends (76.6%) and work/academic life (76.5%)], and satisfaction with disease management (78.5%) [treatment (78.2%), information received (75.6%) and medical care provided by the dermatologist (80.1%)]. This well-being definition reflects patients\' needs and concerns. Therefore, addressing them in psoriasis will optimise management, contributing to better outcomes and restoring normalcy to the patient\'s life.

UNASSIGNED: A vital element to understanding the the health and wellbeing of both humans and the environment is human-nature interactions. The biophilia hypothesis is referred to when discussing these interactions. This hypothesis suggests that due to evolution, humans have an innate urge to seek out nature. The concept of nature connectedness was developed from this hypothesis and is rooted in the belief that human identity and nature can be intertwined. This research aims to explore the intricate details of how an individual builds this connection in a meaningful way.
UNASSIGNED: This is done using a modified Delphi method. A Delphi study in its typical form aims to gather the consensus of a group of experts in a specific area of interest. This modified Delphi aims to break down the barrier between the public and the experts by creating a second category of participants referred to as our \'expanded experts.\' Expand experts are described as individuals with lived experience of being connected to nature in the everyday. This category comprises of artists, city planners, activists and many more. This allows for a much more inclusive and real-world exploration of experiences. The participants will first take part in a semi-structured interview process to investigate their experiences of connecting with nature. Following a hybrid thematic analysis with both deductive and indictive coding will be applied to the interviews. These themes will be shared with participants for them to weigh the importance of the theme to the construct to allow a deeper understanding of our interactions with nature.
UNASSIGNED: The results of this project will contribute to and shape the development of a state-of-the-art nature-connectedness scale. Furthermore, understanding how nature connectedness fits into our modern world will allow for more appropriate nature-based interventions for urban residents and beyond.
This interview-based study looks at the interaction’s individuals have with the nature around them and how those interactions help them to feel connected to the natural world. Interviews are taking place with fellow researchers, as well as individuals who work with nature in their everyday. Some examples are nature-based therapists and practitioners, poets, artists, farmers and city planners to name a few. By undertaking this research, it is hoped that we will better understand what nature resources urban residents require in their areas to improve their overall health and wellbeing as well as how individuals interact with the resources the already have access to. The end goal is to produce a method to measure these interactions for future research and practical use.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and comorbidity influence the therapeutic approach in everyday clinical practice. The DOACs genericization opens a reflection on their differences from a pharmacological and bioavailability point of view, particularly in elderly frail patients. The aim of this project was to create a national Delphi consensus on the topic of the use of DOACs for atrial fibrillation (AF) in such patients, in light of the genericization of the class.
RESULTS: The consensus dealt with 3 main topics: a) efficacy and safety of DOACs in elderly and/or frail patients; b) therapeutic choice in specific frailty scenarios; c) DOACs genericization. 56 cardiologists, two internists and two neurologists from Italy expressed their level of agreement on each statement by using a 5-point Likert scale (1: strongly disagree, 2: disagree, 3: uncertain, 4: agree, 5: strongly agree). A positive consensus was reached if the percentage of agreement (vote 1-2, positive consensus) or disagreement (votes 4-5, negative consensus) was >66%; otherwise, no consensus was reached. Results are displayed accordingly.
CONCLUSIONS: After 10 years of everyday clinical management of DOACs for AF, specific elements differentiating a molecule from another, either for efficacy or for safety, are consolidated. However, some uncertainties still exist in particular contexts, such as chronic kidney disease or cancer patients. Clinicians have an unsure attitude towards generic drugs, because clinical practice is lacking as well as a proper knowledge of the topic. Albeit being an alternative, the choice of the generic drug must remain the responsibility of the clinician.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technology design and development continues to be rapid, despite major limitations in its current form as a practice and discipline to address all sociohumanitarian issues and complexities. From these limitations emerges an imperative to strengthen AI and ML literacy in underserved communities and build a more diverse AI and ML design and development workforce engaged in health research.
OBJECTIVE: AI and ML has the potential to account for and assess a variety of factors that contribute to health and disease and to improve prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. Here, we describe recent activities within the Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Consortium to Advance Health Equity and Researcher Diversity (AIM-AHEAD) Ethics and Equity Workgroup (EEWG) that led to the development of deliverables that will help put ethics and fairness at the forefront of AI and ML applications to build equity in biomedical research, education, and health care.
METHODS: The AIM-AHEAD EEWG was created in 2021 with 3 cochairs and 51 members in year 1 and 2 cochairs and ~40 members in year 2. Members in both years included AIM-AHEAD principal investigators, coinvestigators, leadership fellows, and research fellows. The EEWG used a modified Delphi approach using polling, ranking, and other exercises to facilitate discussions around tangible steps, key terms, and definitions needed to ensure that ethics and fairness are at the forefront of AI and ML applications to build equity in biomedical research, education, and health care.
RESULTS: The EEWG developed a set of ethics and equity principles, a glossary, and an interview guide. The ethics and equity principles comprise 5 core principles, each with subparts, which articulate best practices for working with stakeholders from historically and presently underrepresented communities. The glossary contains 12 terms and definitions, with particular emphasis on optimal development, refinement, and implementation of AI and ML in health equity research. To accompany the glossary, the EEWG developed a concept relationship diagram that describes the logical flow of and relationship between the definitional concepts. Lastly, the interview guide provides questions that can be used or adapted to garner stakeholder and community perspectives on the principles and glossary.
CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing engagement is needed around our principles and glossary to identify and predict potential limitations in their uses in AI and ML research settings, especially for institutions with limited resources. This requires time, careful consideration, and honest discussions around what classifies an engagement incentive as meaningful to support and sustain their full engagement. By slowing down to meet historically and presently underresourced institutions and communities where they are and where they are capable of engaging and competing, there is higher potential to achieve needed diversity, ethics, and equity in AI and ML implementation in health research.

OBJECTIVE: Acromegaly is associated with increased morbidity and mortality if left untreated. The therapeutic options include surgery, medical treatment, and radiotherapy. Several guidelines and recommendations on treatment algorithms and follow-up exist. However, not all recommendations are strictly evidence-based. To evaluate consensus on the treatment and follow-up of patients with acromegaly in the Nordic countries.
METHODS: A Delphi process was used to map the landscape of acromegaly management in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. An expert panel developed 37 statements on the treatment and follow-up of patients with acromegaly. Dedicated endocrinologists (n = 47) from the Nordic countries were invited to rate their extent of agreement with the statements, using a Likert-type scale (1-7). Consensus was defined as ≥80% of panelists rating their agreement as ≥5 or ≤3 on the Likert-type scale.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached in 41% (15/37) of the statements. Panelists agreed that pituitary surgery remains first line treatment. There was general agreement to recommend first-generation somatostatin analog (SSA) treatment after failed surgery and to consider repeat surgery. In addition, there was agreement to recommend combination therapy with first-generation SSA and pegvisomant as second- or third-line treatment. In more than 50% of the statements, consensus was not achieved. Considerable disagreement existed regarding pegvisomant monotherapy, and treatment with pasireotide and dopamine agonists.
CONCLUSIONS: This consensus exploration study on the management of patients with acromegaly in the Nordic countries revealed a relatively large degree of disagreement among experts, which mirrors the complexity of the disease and the shortage of evidence-based data.

BACKGROUND: Globally, there are marked inconsistencies in how immunosuppression is characterized and subdivided into clinical risk groups. This is detrimental to the precision and comparability of disease surveillance efforts-which has negative implications for the care of those who are immunosuppressed and their health outcomes. This was particularly apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic; despite collective motivation to protect these patients, conflicting clinical definitions created international rifts in how those who were immunosuppressed were monitored and managed during this period. We propose that international clinical consensus be built around the conditions that lead to immunosuppression and their gradations of severity concerning COVID-19. Such information can then be formalized into a digital phenotype to enhance disease surveillance and provide much-needed intelligence on risk-prioritizing these patients.
OBJECTIVE: We aim to demonstrate how electronic Delphi objectives, methodology, and statistical approaches will help address this lack of consensus internationally and deliver a COVID-19 risk-stratified phenotype for \"adult immunosuppression.\"
METHODS: Leveraging existing evidence for heterogeneous COVID-19 outcomes in adults who are immunosuppressed, this work will recruit over 50 world-leading clinical, research, or policy experts in the area of immunology or clinical risk prioritization. After 2 rounds of clinical consensus building and 1 round of concluding debate, these panelists will confirm the medical conditions that should be classed as immunosuppressed and their differential vulnerability to COVID-19. Consensus statements on the time and dose dependencies of these risks will also be presented. This work will be conducted iteratively, with opportunities for panelists to ask clarifying questions between rounds and provide ongoing feedback to improve questionnaire items. Statistical analysis will focus on levels of agreement between responses.
RESULTS: This protocol outlines a robust method for improving consensus on the definition and meaningful subdivision of adult immunosuppression concerning COVID-19. Panelist recruitment took place between April and May of 2024; the target set for over 50 panelists was achieved. The study launched at the end of May and data collection is projected to end in July 2024.
CONCLUSIONS: This protocol, if fully implemented, will deliver a universally acceptable, clinically relevant, and electronic health record-compatible phenotype for adult immunosuppression. As well as having immediate value for COVID-19 resource prioritization, this exercise and its output hold prospective value for clinical decision-making across all diseases that disproportionately affect those who are immunosuppressed.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/56271.