How Do We Define and Measure Optimal Care for Cancer Survivors? An Online Modified Reactive Delphi Study.
How Do We Define and Measure Optimal Care for Cancer Survivors? An Online Modified Reactive Delphi Study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3390/cancers13102299
复制
发表时间：
2021-05-11
期刊：
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Jefford M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lisy K;Ly L;Kelly H;Clode M;Jefford M
我们的目的是确定“生存专家认为什么质量标准对实现最佳癌症生存护理很重要？”在线修改后的反应性德尔菲研究进行了两轮。专家包括消费者、临床医生、研究人员、政策制定者以及质量和认证团体。在第一轮中，专家们对68项标准的重要性进行了排名，这些标准来自三个领域的国际文献：政策、过程和结果。在第二轮中，专家们对每个领域的前10个标准进行了排名。这30个项目构成了质量框架。协商一致会议审议了质量框架的优先项目和数据收集的可行性。优先项目的重点是：制定支持提供幸存者护理的政策;制定幸存者护理方案（政策）;评估幸存者治疗后需求的适当程序，并将其分为适当的护理模式（程序）;以及报告幸存者患者报告的结果、生活质量和存活率（结果）。这项研究试图回答这样一个问题：生存专家认为什么质量标准对实现最佳癌症生存护理很重要？在线修改后的反应性德尔菲调查，包括两轮完成与专家，包括消费者，临床医生，研究人员，政策制定者和质量和认证专业人士。调查项目以国际文献为基础，考虑了三个领域：政策、进程和成果。在第一轮（R1）中，专家们对68项标准的重要性进行了5分制的李克特评分。如果>75%的参与者评分为4（重要）或5（非常重要），则保留标准。在第二轮（R2）中，专家们对每个领域的前10个标准进行了排名。有效率分别为79%（70/89）和84%（76/91）。在R1之后，删除了六个标准，并添加了六个标准。从R2开始，每个域保留10个项目。这30个项目构成了质量框架。协商一致会议审议了质量框架的优先项目和数据收集的可行性。优先项目包括制定幸存者护理政策;制定多学科幸存者方案（政策）;评估幸存者在治疗和分层后的情感、心理和身体需求的适当程序，以适当的护理模式（程序）;收集患者报告的结果、生活质量和生存率（结果）。
We aimed to determine ‘what quality criteria do survivorship experts consider to be important in achieving optimal cancer survivorship care?’. An online modified reactive Delphi study was conducted over two rounds. Experts included consumers, clinicians, researchers, policymakers and quality and accreditation groups. In round 1, experts ranked the importance of 68 criteria, derived from the international literature across three domains: Policy, process and outcome. In round 2, experts ranked their top 10 criteria per domain. These 30 items formed the Quality Framework. A consensus meeting considered priority items from the Quality Framework and the feasibility of data collection. Prioritized items focused on having a policy supporting provision of survivorship care; the existence of a survivorship program (policy); appropriate processes to assess survivors’ needs following treatment and to stratify to appropriate models of care (process); and reporting survivors’ patient-reported outcomes, quality of life and survival rates (outcome). This research sought to answer the question ‘what quality criteria do survivorship experts consider to be important in achieving optimal cancer survivorship care?’. An online modified reactive Delphi survey consisting of two rounds was completed with experts including consumers, clinicians, researchers, policymakers and quality and accreditation professionals. Survey items were based on international literature and considered three domains: Policy, process and outcome. In round 1 (R1), experts ranked the importance of 68 criteria on a five-point Likert scale. Criteria were retained if scored 4 (important) or 5 (very important) by >75% participants. In round 2 (R2), experts ranked top 10 criteria per domain. Response rates were 79% (70/89) and 84% (76/91), respectively. After R1, six criteria were removed and six were added. From R2, ten items for each domain were retained. These 30 items formed the Quality Framework. A consensus meeting considered priority items from the Quality Framework and feasibility of data collection. Prioritized items included having a policy on survivorship care; the existence of a multidisciplinary survivorship program (policy); appropriate processes to assess survivors’ emotional, psychological and physical needs following treatment and stratification to appropriate models of care (process); and collecting patient-reported outcomes, quality of life and survival rates (outcome).
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Jefford, Michael;Ward, Andrew C.;Bishop, Jim
通讯作者：
Bishop, Jim
影响因子：
10.3
作者：
Mayer, Deborah K.;Alfano, Catherine M.
通讯作者：
Alfano, Catherine M.
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
Garwood V;Lisy K;Jefford M
通讯作者：
Jefford M
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Reeve, Bryce B.;Wyrwich, Kathleen W.;Butt, Zeeshan
通讯作者：
Butt, Zeeshan
影响因子：
45.3
作者：
McCabe, Mary S.;Bhatia, Smita;Hudson, Melissa M.
通讯作者：
Hudson, Melissa M.