Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care:Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review

BACKGROUND: The Delphi technique is widely used for the development of guidance in palliative care, having impact on decisions with relevance for patient care. AIM: To systematically examine the application of the Delphi technique for the development of best practice guidelines in palliative care. DESIGN: A methodological systematic review was undertaken using the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete and EMBASE. DATA SOURCES: Original articles (English language) were included when reporting on empirical studies that had used the Delphi technique to develop guidance for good clinical practice in palliative care. Data extraction included a quality appraisal on the rigour in conduct of the studies and the quality of reporting. RESULTS: A total of 30 empirical studies (1997-2015) were considered for full-text analysis. Considerable differences were identified regarding the rigour of the design and the reporting of essential process and outcome parameters. Furthermore, discrepancies regarding the use of terms for describing the method were observed, for example, concerning the understanding of a 'round' or a 'modified Delphi study'. CONCLUSION: Substantial variation was found concerning the quality of the study conduct and the transparency of reporting of Delphi studies used for the development of best practice guidance in palliative care. Since credibility of the resulting recommendations depends on the rigorous use of the Delphi technique, there is a need for consistency and quality both in the conduct and reporting of studies. To allow a critical appraisal of the methodology and the resulting guidance, a reporting standard for Conducting and REporting of DElphi Studies (CREDES) is proposed

Workplace policy and management practices to improve the health of employees Evidence Review 3

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has been asked by the Department of Health to develop guidance on management practices to improve the health of employees, with a particular emphasis on the role of line managers and organisational context. The guidance will cover support for managers, their training, and awareness of employee health issues including managing sickness absence, as well as policies and the organisational context. The Institute for Employment Studies (IES) in partnership with The Work Foundation (TWF) and Lancaster University have been contracted to undertake a series of evidence reviews of relevant effectiveness and qualitative studies and an economic analysis to support the production of this guidance. This report presents the third of these evidence reviews and is a qualitative review of non-intervention studies which explore the workplace factors that facilitate or constrain the ability of line managers to enhance the well-being of the people they manage. The first review examined the evidence on the effectiveness of interventions taken by supervisors that could enhance the well-being of the people they manage and the second examined the evidence on the effectiveness of organisational interventions that aim to support line managers to enhance the well-being of the people they manage

Patient-reported outcome measures for use in gynaecological oncology:a systematic review

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to assess the impact of health care on a patient's health. Within the gynaecological oncology setting, multiple PROMs have been adopted but no assessment has been made in terms of their psychometric qualities and robustness. Objectives To undertake a systematic review to identify the most psychometrically robust and appropriate PROM used in the gynaecological oncology setting. Search strategy A search of the bibliographic database of the Oxford PROM group, plus nine additional databases, was carried out along with citation-tracking and hand searches. Selection criteria Studies examining the psychometric properties of outcome measures tested in gynaecological cancer populations were selected by three blinded reviewers. Data collection and analysis Studies were independently assessed and data extracted. Analysis included an appraisal of the psychometric properties and functionality of the included PROMs to guide recommendations. Main results Eighteen PROMs tested in gynaecological oncology settings were identified. These were categorised into seven areas of focus, and the most psychometrically robust tools were identified: (1) generic (no recommendation); (2) general cancer (EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G); (3) pelvic cancer (QUESTGY); (4) ovarian cancer (EORTC QLQ-OV28); (5) cervical cancer (EORTC QLQ-CX24); (6) endometrial cancer (EORTC QLQ-EN 24); and (7) vulval cancer (FACT-V). Author's conclusions Seven PROMs were recommended for use in six gynaecological populations. No single tool was identified that had been tested in all disease groups. Some showed promise, but a lack of conceptual clarity about the core outcomes and the rationale for use will require further testing using well-constructed studies

Additional file 1: Table S1. of Benefits of interventions for respiratory secretion management in adult palliative care patients—a systematic review

Search Strategy, Table S2. PEDro Score in Randomized Controlled Trials, Table S3. PEDro Score in Cross-over Trials. (DOCX 18 kb