Consensus views on competencies and teaching methods for an interprofessional curriculum on complementary and integrative medicine:A Delphi study

Objective:A collaborative team is necessary to help patients achieve their healthcare goals using complementary medicine.At present,healthcare professionals do not feel sufficiently qualified to provide this service.This study sought to identify competencies and teaching methods for interprofessional training on complementary and integrative medicine at medical schools.Methods:Sixty-five German-speaking experts with various professional backgrounds were invited to take part in a three-round Delphi study.In the first round,predefined competencies were assessed on a seven-point Likert scale,and participants were invited to propose additional competencies that would be evaluated in the subsequent rounds.The competencies were ranked based on the participant assessments and were assigned to four relevance groups.In the second and third rounds,suitable teaching methods were identified using free-text fields and multiple-choice questions.In a final workshop,participants synthesized the outcomes of the previous sessions and derived key competencies that would be a benefit to undergraduate interprofessional training in complementary and integrative medicine at medical schools.Results:The three rounds plus final worksop were attended by 50,40,36 and 11 experts.The competencies that these experts determined to be highly relevant to teaching complementary and integrative medicine emphasized,in particular,the respectful treatment of patients and the importance of taking a medical history.From these highly relevant competencies,three key targets were agreed upon in the final workshop:students are able to 1)classify and assess complementary medical terms and methods;2)work collaboratively and integrate patients into the interprofessional team;3)involve patients and their relatives respectfully and empathetically in all healthcare processes.To achieve these competency goals,the following teaching methods were highlighted:students discuss therapy options based on authentic patient cases with each other and practice empathic patient communication incorporating complementary medicine.Further,the theoretical background of complementary medicines could be provided as online-training,to use the class sessions for hands-on exercises and interprofessional exchange and discussion.Conclusion:Despite the heterogeneous panel of experts,a consensus was reached on the competency orientation and teaching approaches.The results can promote the implementation of interprofessional training for complementary medicine in undergraduate education.

Consensus on the health education of home-based negative pressure wound therapy for patients with chronic wounds:a modified Delphi study

Background:The study aimed to develop consensus on the components of health education of home-based negative pressure wound therapy(NPWT)for patients with chronic wounds.Methods:A Delphi method was used to achieve consensus on the components of health education and 75%agreement and coefficient of variation(CV)<0.25 were used as cutoff.Sixteen experts were recruited purposefully to finish this study.Results:Two rounds of consultation were implemented.Consensus was achieved on 36 of the 42 statements.The final agreed list of statements represented three domains:health education before carrying out home-based NPWT,health education for the treatment day of NPWT at hospital and health education for NPWT at home.Conclusions:This study was the first attempt to develop consensus on the comprehensive components of health education of home-based NPWT for patients with chronic wounds.According to the established framework and components of health education,wound professionals can safely and effectively implement health education of home-based NPWT for patients with chronic wounds and improve their self-care ability and treatment experience at home.

Delphi methodology in healthcare research:How to decide its appropriateness

The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members.The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine.The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited,ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting.However,the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance,and details of the process followed are usually unclear.We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology;identification of problem area of research,selection of panel,anonymity of panelists,controlled feedback,iterative Delphi rounds,consensus criteria,analysis of consensus,closing criteria,and stability of the results.Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points,we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019.There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members,defining consensus,closing criteria for rounds,and presenting the results.We propose our evaluation points for researchers,medical journal editorial boards,and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.