The Development of Criteria for the Selection of Chinese Peer Educators in HIV Management: A Delphi Study

Qiu, Yan; Shen, Jiayin; Lu, Hongzhou

doi:10.1155/2016/9521313

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The expert’s authority is expressed by a coefficient called expert authority coefficient (Cr). Generally, two factors determine Cr: one is a measure of expert judgment, expressed in Ca, and the other is a measure of an expert’s familiarity with indicators, expressed in Cs ( Qiu et al, 2016 ). As a way of indicating experts’ familiarity, we used a 5-point scale (1.0, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4, and 0.2) ranging from extremely familiar to unfamiliar.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a drug clinical trial participation feelings questionnaire for cancer patients

Guo,

Xing,

Zhao

et al. 2024

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe study was designed to develop and validate a new drug clinical trial participation feelings questionnaire (DCTPFQ) for cancer patients.MethodsData collection and analysis involved a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. There were two phases to this study. Phase Ⅰ involved developing a questionnaire to establish a list of items to be included in the pool: A theoretical framework was constructed based on the transitions theory and the Roper–Logan–Tierney theory. After incorporating a theoretical framework, interviewing participants, and reviewing the literature, 44 items were generated. After a Delphi consultation and a pilot test, 36 items proceeded to item analysis and exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and a four-factor structure with 21 items was formed. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), test–retest reliability, criteria-related validity, and internal consistency tests were conducted in phase II to examine the psychometric properties.ResultsThere were 21 items on the DCTPFQ, ranging from 1 (fully disagree) through 5 (fully agree). As a result of EFA and CFA, the four factors of DCTPFQ could be verified, including cognitive engagement, subjective experience, medical resources, and relatives and friends’ support. Test–retest reliability of the DCTPFQ was 0.840, and Cronbach’s alpha was 0.934. DCTPFQ is significantly correlated with the Fear of Progression Questionnaire—short form (r = 0.731, p < 0.05) and the Mishel’s Uncertainty in Illness Scale (r = 0.714, p < 0.05).ConclusionThe DCTPFQ is a useful tool for measuring the drug clinical trial participation feelings among cancer patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of a drug clinical trial participation feelings questionnaire for cancer patients

Guo,

Xing,

Zhao

et al. 2024

Front. Pharmacol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reliability and representativeness of the expert consultations were measured as follows: The positivity coefficient (response rate), calculated as the ratio of the number of questionnaires delivered to the number of those returned, was used to appraise experts’ enthusiasm. The authority coefficient (Cr), calculated as Cr = (Cs + Ca)/2, where Ca and Cs are arithmetical means of experts’ familiarity scores and their sources of knowledge scores, was used to assess experts’ perceived degree of authority [ 17 ]. Expert consultation results were considered reliable when Cr ≥ 0.70 [ 18 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritization of Vaccines for Inclusion into China’s Expanded Program on Immunization: Evidence from Experts’ Knowledge and Opinions

Wang

et al. 2022

Vaccines

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Vaccine developers in China have made an increasing number of infectious diseases preventable through vaccination. An appropriate decision-making procedure is necessary for making wise decisions on whether to introduce new vaccines into the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI). When there are several vaccines that could potentially be considered, a scientifically justifiable mechanism is needed for prioritizing and sequencing vaccines for consideration. Methods: We used a modified Delphi technique (MDT) to develop and refine an indicator system to prioritize vaccines and make policy recommendations concerning their introduction into China’s EPI system. From January through May 2021, thirty-nine experts were recruited and participated in a two-round Delphi survey that was based on a set of candidate indicators obtained through a literature review and reference to the WHO vaccine introduction recommendations. Using the resulting indicator system, we conducted a third consultation with a multi-disciplinary group of experts who scored five program-eligible candidate vaccines to determine prioritization and sequencing for consideration of inclusion into the EPI. Results: Response rates of the thirty-nine experts were 100% and 97.4% across the two rounds. Authority coefficients from rounds one to three were over 0.70, reflecting the high accuracy and reliability of the consultation. Coordination coefficients of importance scores for primary, secondary, and tertiary indicators were 0.486, 0.356, 0.275 in round one, and 0.405, 0.340, and 0.236 in round two. According to the scores from 30 experts using our indicator system, the sequence and scores (1–10 scale, 10 highest) of 5 candidate vaccines were varicella (6.91), meningococcal conjugate AC (6.83), Hib (6.74), influenza (6.56), and EV71 (6.17) vaccines. Conclusions: A modified Delphi technique effectively built a scientific, rational, comprehensive, and systematic indicator system for prioritizing vaccine candidates for consideration of inclusion into the EPI. The rank order will be used by the technical working groups of China’s National Immunization Advisory Committee to sequentially develop and present Evidence-to-Recommendation tables for making policy recommendations.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the coefficients of expert authority were assessed based on the degree of familiarity as well as the quantification scores of judgment basis and influence degree for the system. The consensus coefficient of expert opinions, which is in general defined as coordination coefficient W, indicated the degree of consistency among the experts and consistency of scoring results during the Delphi course [29,30].…”

Section: Delphi Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comprehensive Evaluation System of Occupational Hazard Prevention and Control in Iron and Steel Enterprises Based on A Modified Delphi Technique

Song

Chen

Zhang

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study designs a comprehensive evaluation system for the prevention and control of occupational hazards, calculates its weight coefficient, and provides a potential strategic and effective tool for the scientific evaluation of occupational hazards in the iron and steel enterprises. The system was established through induction and analysis of relevant literature, personal interview, theoretical analysis, Delphi expert consultation, and special group discussions. Using an improved analytical hierarchy process fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model and on the basis of the improved Delphi expert investigation, the weight of the operability comprehensive evaluation index system is constructed. A three-level index system is established on the basis of harmful factors of occupational activities, health status of employees, protection facilities of occupational hazards, occupational health management, and so on. The index system structure is 4-20-95, and the weight coefficients of the four dimensions are 0.2516, 0.2428, 0.2550, and 0.2506. The recovery rate of the questionnaire was 82.5%, 100.0%, and 100.0%. The effective rates were 75.0%, 100.0%, and 100.0%. Conversely, the expert authority coefficients of the four dimensions are 0.875, 0.769, 0.832 and 0.800. Results show that the consistency factors of the four dimensions are statistically significant. Cronbach’s α coefficient, standardized Cronbach’s α coefficient, and split-half reliability of the comprehensive evaluation index system are 0.959, 0.950, and 0.810, respectively. After factor analysis, four common factors were extracted on the basis of expert opinions, and the cumulative variance was 63.1%. The comprehensive evaluation system for the prevention and control of occupational hazards in the iron and steel enterprises proposed by the study is relatively complete and reasonable.

show abstract

The Development of Criteria for the Selection of Chinese Peer Educators in HIV Management: A Delphi Study

Cited by 4 publications

References 16 publications

Development and validation of a drug clinical trial participation feelings questionnaire for cancer patients

Development and validation of a drug clinical trial participation feelings questionnaire for cancer patients

Prioritization of Vaccines for Inclusion into China’s Expanded Program on Immunization: Evidence from Experts’ Knowledge and Opinions

Comprehensive Evaluation System of Occupational Hazard Prevention and Control in Iron and Steel Enterprises Based on A Modified Delphi Technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About