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.

BACKGROUND: Venous leg ulceration (VLU) is a chronic, recurring condition with associated pain, malodour, impaired mobility and susceptibility to infection which in turn significantly impacts an individual\'s health-related quality of life. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aim to determine the efficacy of interventions to improve outcomes. To be useful, these outcomes should be consistently and fully reported across RCTs. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed-upon standardised set of outcomes which should be, at a minimum, reported in all RCTs for a given indication including that of VLU.
OBJECTIVE: To gain consensus on which outcome domains and outcomes should be considered as core and therefore included in all RCTs of interventions in VLU treatment.
METHODS: Two sequential, two round e-Delphi surveys were completed. The first gained consensus on core outcome domains and the second on core outcomes within those domains. Participants included: people with direct experience of having VLUs and their carers, healthcare professionals whose practice included VLU care and researchers within wound care (clinical, academic, industry).
RESULTS: Five outcome domains; healing, pain, quality of life, resource use and adverse events, and 11 outcomes were rated as core by participants. The patient and not the limb or ulcer was the preferred unit of analysis for reporting.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend investigators report on all five outcome domains, regardless of the type of intervention being evaluated. Future research is needed to identify measurement methods for the 11 identified outcomes. We also recommend investigators follow the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

BACKGROUND: Researchers in the Netherlands proposed the Pillars for Positive Health (PPH) as a broadly encompassing health definition to support more realistic and meaningful care planning for people living with chronic disease and other life-long health conditions. The PPH was subsequently converted to the My Positive Health (MPH) spider web visualization tool. This study sought to identify opportunities for more person-centred care planning at the point of care in home care, using the MPH tool as a framework to link comprehensive assessment and dialogue-based goal-setting.
METHODS: A modified eDelphi method was used to conduct domain mapping with a purposively sampled expert panel (n = 25). The panel consisted of researchers, health care providers, older adults and caregivers. A two-stage eDelphi process was conducted, with each stage consisting of three survey rounds. In the first stage, participants were asked to map 201 elements of the interRAI Home Care (interRAI HC) comprehensive assessment tool to the six MPH domains or \"No pillar of best fit\". The second stage focused on identifying opportunities to adapt or expand comprehensive assessment as it relates to the MPH domains.
RESULTS: In Stage 1, 189 of 201 elements reached consensus in domain mapping. These included: 80 elements for Bodily Functions, 32 for Daily Functioning, 32 for Mental Wellbeing, 24 for Quality of Life, 10 for Participation, and 1 for Meaningfulness. Ten elements were identified to have no pillar of best fit. The 12 elements that did not reach consensus in Stage 1 formed the basis for Stage 2, where expert panel participants proposed four new assessment elements in Meaningfulness and Participation and 11 additional descriptors across the six MPH domains. Of these, two elements and nine of the 11 descriptors reached consensus.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that elements of the interRAI HC are oriented toward the physical, functional, and mental health domains. Consequently, complementary assessment elements and/or tools may be needed to support comprehensive assessment of \'Meaningfulness\' and \'Participation\' in person-centred home and community care. Additional descriptors may also be needed to aid communication regarding the understanding and application of MPH domains.

UNASSIGNED: Dose reduction of biologics for psoriasis is applied in daily practice, although guidelines are lacking. Striving for clear criteria is important, as it leads to a consistent application of dose reduction.
UNASSIGNED: To achieve consensus on criteria for biologic dose reduction in psoriasis patients with stable and low disease activity.
UNASSIGNED: An online Delphi procedure (eDelphi) was conducted. Dutch dermatologists were invited to participate in a maximum of 3 voting rounds. Proposed statements were selected based on literature review and included criteria for the application of dose reduction and dosing schedules. Biologic dose reduction was defined as \'application of injection interval prolongation\'. Proposed statements were rated using a 9-point Likert scale; consensus was reached when ≥70% of all voters rated \'agree\' (7-9) and <15% rated \'disagree\' (1-3).
UNASSIGNED: A total of 27 dermatologists participated and reached a consensus on 15 recommendations over 2 voting rounds. Agreed statements included criteria for dose reduction eligibility, criteria for dose reduction (dis)continuation, and dosing schedules for adalimumab, etanercept, and ustekinumab. Based on the eDelphi outcomes, an algorithm fit for implementation in current practice was developed.
UNASSIGNED: Recommendations of this national consensus process can guide clinicians, and consequently their patients, toward consistent application of biologic dose reduction.

Healthcare providers have improved consumer access to healthcare services by the adoption of information communication technology and the use of telemedicine. With the current COVID-19 pandemic, consumers are shifting to remote teleconsultation. There are several studies regarding consumers\' acceptance and satisfaction with telemedicine among healthcare providers and a few among patients at healthcare facilities. However, studies about patients\' motivation toward the use of teleconsultation systems are very few.
The aim of this study was to validate an instrument of a newly developed framework to identify factors that motivate patients to use a teleconsultation system.
This study used a modified eDelphi method incorporating content validity index and content validity ratio procedures to validate the instrument among fifteen experts from different disciplines. The eDelphi consisted of three rounds to review each item\'s relevance, clarity, importance and the overall validity of the instrument.
The result showed a significant level of agreement among experts for individual items\' relevance, clarity and importance. For relevance, all items had excellent I-CVI above 0.889, except one item with I-CVI = 0.78, which is still acceptable. For clarity, all items had an excellent I-CVI > 0.889, except one with I-CVI = 0.667. For importance, most items had CVR above the threshold value of 0.778, except 5 items. Also, the result showed moderate to high content validity of the overall instrument (S-CVI/UA = 0.694; S-CVI/Ave = 0.996).
These findings support the validity and reliability of the developed instrument, which can be used to identify factors that motivated patients to use a teleconsultation system. Future testing of the instrument should be conducted with a larger population that uses a teleconsultation system.
An instrument was developed to identify factors that motivated consumers to use teleconsultation, using a modified eDelphi method among experts. The eDelphi method consisted of three rounds and the results showed that the instrument is a valid and reliable tool.

Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is an important cause of feline morbidity and mortality. There is currently no agreement on which outcomes are most important in CKD treatment trials to assist evidence-based decision making. Core Outcome Sets (COSs) originated in human healthcare and are an agreed set of outcomes to be measured and reported as a minimum in any trial conducted relating to a particular disease. To establish a COS for feline CKD, this study used a systematic review and two consensus methodologies (an electronic Delphi (eDelphi), and an in-person consensus meeting), with an international panel of key stakeholders. The systematic review identified 104 unique published parameters, which were rated by panellists in round 1 of the eDelphi. Panellists were also asked to suggest additional parameters. In round 2 these additional parameters were rated and any parameters not understood by >10 % of panellists in round 1 were redefined and re-rated. Parameters reaching consensus in rounds 1 and 2 were removed from round 3, when all remaining parameters were re-rated by panellists who could view their own previous rating alongside the median rating of the whole panel. To reach inclusion in the COS, parameters had to be rated 8 or 9 on a Likert scale of 1-9 (where 1 was not important and 9 was very important) by more than 80 % of panellists. In the consensus meeting, panellists discussed and re-rated borderline parameters and streamlined the final COS. Borderline parameters were those that had been closest to, but not achieved, the 80 % threshold for inclusion. The eDelphi panel (n = 73) rated 24/104 parameters highly enough for inclusion and proposed an additional 20 parameters, of which 3 reached the inclusion threshold. This totalled 27 parameters for inclusion. The consensus meeting panel (n = 16) rated an additional 6/20 borderline parameters highly enough for inclusion. During the streamlining process, 4 parameters were removed as one was considered not an outcome, and three were already addressed by other parameters. The remaining COS totalled 29 parameters. These were grouped into 9 core themes: clinical examination, quality of life, serum biochemistry, complete blood count, urinalysis, total amount of food eaten, CKD progression, survival time and cause of death. This is the first COS for feline medicine. In future treatment efficacy trials the COS will strengthen the evidence-base for this condition, by facilitating easier comparison of results between studies, and reduce research waste.

As patients are increasingly searching for information about their medical condition on the internet, there is a need for health professionals to be able to guide patients toward reliable and suitable information sources on the internet.
The aim of the study was to develop a clinical tool for health care professionals to assess the usability and quality of the content of websites containing medical information that could be recommended to patients.
A 3-round modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) study was conducted with 20 health care professionals.
In round one of the eDelphi study, of the 68 items initially created, 41 items (29 on usability and 12 on content) were rated as important or very important by more than half of the panel and thus selected for further evaluation in round two. In round two, of the 41 items chosen from round 1, 19 were selected (9 on usability and 10 on content) as important or very important by more than half of the panel for further evaluation. As a result of round three, 2 items were combined as a single item, leaving the instrument with 18 items in total (8 on usability and 10 on content). The tool is freely accessible online.
The CUE-tool can be used to (1) evaluate the usability and reliability of the content of websites before recommending them to patients as a good information source; (2) identify websites that do not have reliable content or may be difficult for patients to use; (3) develop quality websites by using the criteria in the CUE-tool; and (4) identify different qualities between different websites.

UNASSIGNED: Despite their adverse effects, antipsychotics are frequently used to manage behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Regular monitoring of antipsychotic prescribing has been shown to improve the appropriateness of prescribing. However, there is currently no consensus on what the components of such a monitoring tool would be.
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this study was to use an expert consensus process to identify the key components of an antipsychotic repeat prescribing tool for use with people with dementia in a general practice setting.
UNASSIGNED: A modified eDelphi technique was employed. We invited multidisciplinary experts in antipsychotic prescribing to people with dementia to participate. These experts included general practitioners (GPs), geriatricians and old age psychiatrists. The list of statements for round 1 was developed through a review of existing monitoring tools and international best practice guidelines. In the second round of the Delphi, any statement that had not reached consensus in the first round was presented for re-rating, with personalized feedback on the group and the individual\'s response to the specific statement. The final round consisted of a face-to-face expert meeting to resolve any uncertainties from round 2.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 23 items were rated over two eDelphi rounds and one face-to-face consensus meeting to yield a total of 18 endorsed items and five rejected items. The endorsed statements informed the development of a structured, repeat prescribing tool for monitoring antipsychotics in people with dementia in primary care.
UNASSIGNED: The development of repeat prescribing tool provides GPs with practical advice that is lacking in current guidelines and will help to support GPs by providing a structured format to use when reviewing antipsychotic prescriptions for people with dementia, ultimately improving patient care. The feasibility and acceptability of the tool now need to be evaluated in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: This paper presents the overall approach undertaken by the \"VEctor boRne DiseAses Scoping reviews\" (VERDAS) consortium in response to a call issued by the Vectors, Environment and Society unit of the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases hosted by the World Health Organization. The aim of the project was to undertake a broad knowledge synthesis and identify knowledge gaps regarding the control and prevention of vector-borne diseases in urban settings.
METHODS: The consortium consists of 14 researchers, 13 research assistants, and one research coordinator from seven different institutions in Canada, Colombia, Brazil, France, Spain, and Burkina Faso. A six-step protocol was developed for the scoping reviews undertaken by the consortium, based on the framework developed by Arksey and O\'Malley and improved by Levac et al. In the first step, six topics were identified through an international eDelphi consultation. In the next four steps, the scoping reviews were conducted. The sixth step was the VERDAS workshop held in Colombia in March 2017.
CONCLUSIONS: In this article, we discuss several methodological issues encountered and share our reflections on this work. We believe this protocol provides a strong example of an exhaustive and rigorous process for performing broad knowledge synthesis for any given topic and should be considered for future research initiatives and donor agendas in multiple fields to highlight research needs scientifically.

In mental health services what is commonplace across international frontiers is that to prevent aggressive patients from harming themselves, other patients or staff, coercive measures and foremost, violence management strategies are required. There is no agreement, recommendations or direction from the EU on which measures of coercion should be practiced across EU countries, and there is no overall one best practice approach.
The project was conceived through an expert group, the European Violence in Psychiatry Research Group (EViPRG). The study aimed to incorporate an EU and multidisciplinary response in the determination of violence management practices and related research and education priorities across 17 European countries. From the EVIPRG members, one member from each country agreed to act as the national project coordinator for their country. Given the international spread of respondents, an eDelphi survey approach was selected for the study design and data collection. A survey instrument was developed, agreed and validated through members of EVIPRG.
The results included a total of 2809 respondents from 17 countries with 999 respondents who self-selected for round 2 eDelphi. The majority of respondents worked in acute psychiatry, 54% (n = 1511); outpatient departments, 10.5% (n = 295); and Forensic, 9.3% (n = 262). Other work areas of respondents include Rehabilitation, Primary Care and Emergency. It is of concern that 19.5% of respondents had not received training on violence management. The most commonly used interventions in the management of violent patients were physical restraint, seclusion and medications. The top priorities for education and research included: preventing violence; the influence of environment and staff on levels of violence; best practice in managing violence; risk assessment and the aetiology and triggers for violence and aggression.
In many European countries there is an alarming lack of clarity on matters of procedure and policy pertaining to violence management in mental health services. Violence management practices in Europe appear to be fragmented with no identified ideological position or collaborative education and research. In Europe, language differences are a reality and may have contributed to insular thinking, however, it must not be seen as a barrier to sharing best practice.