A Practical Guide to Applying the Delphi Technique in Mental Health Treatment Adaptation: The Example of Enhanced Problem-Solving Training (E-PST).
A Practical Guide to Applying the Delphi Technique in Mental Health Treatment Adaptation: The Example of Enhanced Problem-Solving Training (E-PST).
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/pro0000371
复制
发表时间：
2021-08
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Wray LO
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
King PR Jr;Beehler GP;Donnelly K;Funderburk JS;Wray LO
专家共识方法，如德尔菲程序，通常用于消费者，教育和卫生服务研究。然而，这种方法的效用还没有被广泛描述的精神卫生治疗适应的努力。这一差距值得注意，因为循证治疗经常在核心干预内容、提供方法和目标人群方面进行修改。专家共识方法，如德尔菲程序，提供了多种实际好处（例如，灵活性，资源效率），为心理学家谁需要调整现有的治疗，以满足新的研究和临床实践的需要。本文的目的是提供一个简要概述的德尔菲程序，并提供一个实用的指南，使用这种方法的治疗适应。一个例子是使用我们的团队的应用程序的三轮德尔菲程序呈现内容和上下文修改现有的解决问题的干预措施，以优化其使用一个新的治疗人群。数据收集自退伍军人事务部临床主题专家。第一轮利用半结构化访谈来确定必要的协议功能和修改。第2-3轮利用强迫选择调查和反馈循环来评估专家共识。超过91%的评分项目在第二轮后达成共识，其余项目在第三轮后达成共识。建议的修改包括轻微的结构和内容编辑，以及重新平衡时间分配。我们的结论是，共识的方法可以促进治疗适应的努力，提高治疗的可行性，并促进内容和生态有效性。考虑未来的Delphi为基础的治疗适应提供。
Expert consensus methods, such as the Delphi procedure, are commonly employed in consumer, education, and health services research. However, the utility of this methodology has not widely been described in relation to mental health treatment adaptation efforts. This gap is noteworthy given that evidence-based treatments are often modified in terms of core intervention content, method of delivery, and target populations. Expert consensus methods such as the Delphi procedure offer multiple practical benefits (e.g., flexibility, resource-efficiency) for psychologists who need to adapt existing treatments to meet new research and clinical practice needs. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the Delphi procedure, and to offer a practical guide to using this method for treatment adaptation. An example is offered using our team’s application of a three-round Delphi procedure to render content and context modifications to an existing problem-solving intervention to optimize its use with a new treatment population. Data were collected from Department of Veterans Affairs clinical subject matter experts. Round 1 utilized semi-structured interviews to determine necessary protocol features and modifications. Rounds 2-3 utilized a forced-choice survey and feedback loop to evaluate expert consensus. More than 91% of rated items reached consensus following Round 2, with the remainder following Round 3. Recommended modifications included minor structural and content edits, and re-balancing time allotments. We conclude that consensus methods may facilitate treatment adaptation efforts, enhance treatment feasibility, and promote content and ecological validity. Considerations for future Delphi-based treatment adaptations are offered.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Keeney, S;Hasson, F;McKenna, H
通讯作者：
McKenna, H
影响因子：
3.8
作者：
Hasson, F;Keeney, S;McKenna, H
通讯作者：
McKenna, H
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
McMillan SS;King M;Tully MP
通讯作者：
Tully MP
影响因子：
2.6
作者：
Dinos S
通讯作者：
Dinos S
DOI：
10.1682/jrrd.2003.11.0172
发表时间：
2005-09-01
影响因子：
--
作者：
van der Linde, H;Hofstad, CJ;Geertzen, JHB
通讯作者：
Geertzen, JHB