Browsing by Subject "Delphi"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Are we there yet? on a journey towards more contextually relevant resources in speech-language therapy and audiology
    (AOSIS Publishing, 2013) Pascoe, Michelle; Rogers, Christine; Norman, Vivienne
    Audiologists and speech-language therapists working in developing contexts like South Africa have the opportunity to address a range of needs through their research. One of these needs is the development of assessments and therapy materials that are appropriate for their clients’particular language needs and cultural background. This editorial paper aims to introduce original research in speech-language therapy and audiology, which has been carried out in South Africa and other developing contexts and is presented in this volume of the journal. In addition we suggest that while the focus of much research is on the destination or end product that is developed, there is a need to share the methodologies that are used to reach that goal so that more research can be carried out by a wider pool of students, researchers and clinicians. We describe some of the methods that we have used in our research – often in small scale projects with budgetary constraints, which would be feasible for clinicians in their routine clinical contexts. Our hope is that others can build on these approaches, critique and share their own strategies for the ultimate advancement of the professions in southern Africa.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Developing indicators for Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Primary Health Care Approach in Health Sciences at the University of Cape Town using a DELPHI method
    (2021) Datay, Mohammed Ishaaq; Singh, Shajila; Irlam, James
    Background The University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences (UCT FHS) adopted the Primary Health Care (PHC) approach as its lead theme for teaching, research, and clinical service in1994 Aim To develop indicators to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the PHC approach in Health Sciences Education . Method A Delphi study, conducted over two rounds, presented indicators of Social Accountability from the Training for Health Equity Network (THEnet), as well as indicators derived from the principles of the PHC approach in the UCT FHS, to a national multidisciplinary panel. An electronic questionnaire was used to score each indicator according to relevance, feasibility/measurability, and its application to undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. Qualitative feedback on the proposed indicators was also elicited. Results Round 1: Of the 59 Social Accountability indicators presented to the panel, the 20 highest ranked indicators were selected for Round 2. Qualitative feedback challenged the link between social accountability and PHC, resulting in an additional 19 PHC-specific indicators being presented in Round 2. Round 2: The indicators which scored >85% and made the final list were: PHC: Continuity of care (94%); Holistic understanding of health care (88%); Respecting human rights (88%); Providing accessible care to all (88%); and Promoting health through health education (88%). THEnet: Safety of learners (88%); Education reflects communities' needs (86%); Teaching embodies social accountability (86%); Teaching is appropriate to learners' needs (86%) Conclusion These PHC and THEnet indicators can be used to assess the implementation of PHC in Health Sciences Education. The specific indicators identified reflect priorities relevant to the local context. One limitation is that some key priority indicators did not make the final list.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Working towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study
    (2017) Mandimika, Nyaradzo; Barnes, Karen I; Chandler, Clare I R; Pace, Cheryl; Allen, Elizabeth N
    BACKGROUND: Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission. METHODS: Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies. RESULTS: Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools. CONCLUSIONS: This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and non-study medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited anti-malarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Open Access
    Working towards consensus on methods used to elicit participant-reported safety data in uncomplicated malaria clinical drug studies: a Delphi technique study
    (BioMed Central, 2017-01-28) Mandimika, Nyaradzo; Barnes, Karen I; Chandler, Clare I R; Pace, Cheryl; Allen, Elizabeth N
    Background: Eliciting adverse event (AE) and non-study medication data reports from clinical research participants is integral to evaluating drug safety. However, using different methods to question participants yields inconsistent results, compromising the interpretation, comparison and pooling of data across studies. This is particularly important given the widespread use of anti-malarials in vulnerable populations, and their increasing use in healthy, but at-risk individuals, as preventive treatment or to reduce malaria transmission. Methods: Experienced and knowledgeable anti-malarial drug clinical researchers were invited to participate in a Delphi technique study, to facilitate consensus on what are considered optimal (relevant, important and feasible) methods, tools, and approaches for detecting participant-reported AE and non-study medication data in uncomplicated malaria treatment studies. Results: Of 72 invited, 25, 16 and 10 panellists responded to the first, second and third rounds of the Delphi, respectively. Overall, 68% (68/100) of all questioning items presented for rating achieved consensus. When asking general questions about health, panellists agreed on the utility of a question/concept about any change in health, taking care to ensure that such questions/concepts do not imply causality. Eighty-nine percent (39/44) of specific signs and symptoms questions were rated as optimal. For non-study medications, a general question and most structured questioning items were considered an optimal approach. The use of mobile phones, patient diaries, rating scales as well as openly engaging with participants to discuss concerns were also considered optimal complementary data-elicitation tools. Conclusions: This study succeeded in reaching consensus within a section of the anti-malarial drug clinical research community about using a general question concept, and structured questions for eliciting data about AEs and nonstudy medication reports. The concepts and items considered in this Delphi to be relevant, important and feasible should be further investigated for potential inclusion in a harmonized approach to collect participant-elicited antimalarial drug safety data. This, in turn, should improve understanding of anti-malarial drug safety.