Expert consensus on the development of a health-related questionnaire for the pediatric field of Korean medicine: a Delphi study

Abstract

Background: Although a variety of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for children have been developed, there is no pediatric PROM specific to Korean medicine (KM) that is validated by experts in the field. The aim of this study was to collate the opinions of specialists in KM pediatrics on the development of a generic PROM that can be used by Korean medical doctors to assess the health status of children. Methods: A three-round Delphi survey was conducted to determine the level of consensus on the development of a new PROM. Delphi questionnaires were sent by e-mail to 91 KM pediatricians on January 24, 2018. The Delphi questionnaire was composed of four sections: conceptualization, construction, items, and sources of content for a PROM. A nine-point Likert scale was used, and if more than two-thirds of the panels agreed or disagreed with a given sentence, they were considered to have reached a consensus. A draft of a PROM for the pediatric field of KM was developed in accordance with the preliminary conceptual framework. Results: Out of 91 experts, 18 finished three rounds of the Delphi survey. The experts reached a consensus on the necessity of a KM pediatric PROM for measuring various areas including child health, and using Likert scales with a recall period of 3 months. They also agreed on specific items and sources of content. A new draft of a health questionnaire for KM pediatrics was developed based on the Delphi consensus. It contains 44 items covering 7 domains: i) functions of the digestive system, ii) functions of the respiratory system, iii) mental functions, iv) skin functions, v) pain, vi) functions of the metabolic and endocrine systems, and vii) demographic details. Conclusions: This research represents the first step in developing a health questionnaire for the pediatric field of KM. The questionnaire can be used in clinical and research settings after verifying several types of validity and reliability.

Validação de conteúdo de Instrumento de Avaliação da Atenção Nutricional na Atenção Primária à Saúde

“…However, the number of participants exceeded that observed in other surveys [56,57,59]. To minimize losses, reminders were sent out and deadlines were extended, even though the Delphi technique does not require a representative sample of participants [40,51,60]. The reduction in the number of experts between the rounds was not a factor of concern, since this difference does not affect quality or reliability, because we are dealing with a panel [51].…”

Developing a National Set of Health Equity Indicators Using a Consensus Building Process

“…This number of measures was compatible with the literature about on-line Delphi techniques. 32,42 Stage B: Agreement on the Criteria for Equity Indicator Rating Based on the literature and on the experience gained in the extant Israeli National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare, 37,43 the researchers identified and evaluated diverse criteria that could guide the Delphi participants on the rating of the inequity measures. The steering committee helped define the final four criteria.…”

“…Participants have the option to reconsider their initial grading in light of the group scoring. This technique has been widely used to reach agreement among experts and/or public representatives on various issues, such as health policy, 31 patient reported outcome measures, 32 as well as in selection of equity 33 and quality 34 indicators.…”

Developing a national set of health equity indicators using a consensus building process

“…This number of measures was compatible with the literature about on-line Delphi techniques. 23,24 Stage B: Agreement on the criteria for equity indicator rating Based on the literature and on the experience gained in the extant Israeli National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare, 21,25 the researchers identi ed and evaluated diverse criteria that could guide the Delphi participants on the rating of the disparity measures. The steering committee helped de ne the nal four criteria by anonymously voting on the weight of each criterion.…”

“…Participants have the option to reconsider their initial grading in light of the group scoring. This technique has been used to reach agreement among experts and/or public representatives on various issues, such as health policy, 27 patient reported outcome measures, 24 and equity indicators in primary care. 28 To allow busy participants from the whole country to participate, an online process was undertaken, facilitated by Qualtrics survey software.…”