Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27142859›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Modified international e-Delphi survey to define healthcare professional competencies for working with teenagers and young adults with cancer.

Rachel M Taylor, Richard G Feltbower, Natasha Aslam, Rosalind Raine, Jeremy S Whelan, Faith Gibson

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rachel M TaylorNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK School of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Richard G FeltbowerDivision of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Natasha AslamNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rosalind RaineDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Jeremy S WhelanNIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Faith GibsonSchool of Health and Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK Centre for Outcomes and Experience Research in Children's Health, Illness and Disability, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1209-10013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo provide international consensus on the competencies required by healthcare professionals in order to provide specialist care for teenagers and young adults (TYA) with cancer.

designModified e-Delphi survey.

settingInternational, multicentre study.

participantsExperts were defined as professionals having worked in TYA cancer care for more than 12 months. They were identified through publications and professional organisations.

methodsRound 1, developed from a previous qualitative study, included 87 closed-ended questions with responses on a nine-point Likert scale and further open-ended responses to identify other skills, knowledge and attitudes. Round 2 contained only items with no consensus in round 1 and suggestions of additional items of competency. Consensus was defined as a median score ranging from 7 to 9 and strength of agreement using mean absolute deviation of the median.

resultsA total of 179 registered to be members of the expert panel; valid responses were available from 158 (88%) in round 1 and 136/158 (86%) in round 2. The majority of participants were nurses (35%) or doctors (39%) from Europe (55%) or North America (35%). All 87 items in round 1 reached consensus with an additional 15 items identified for round 2, which also reached consensus. The strength of agreement was mostly high for statements. The areas of competence rated most important were agreed to be: 'Identify the impact of disease on young people's life' (skill), 'Know about side effects of treatment and how this might be different to those experienced by children or older adults' (knowledge), 'Honesty' (attitude) and 'Listen to young people's concerns' (aspect of communication).

conclusionsGiven the high degree of consensus, this list of competencies should influence education curriculum, professional development and inform workforce planning. Variation in strength of agreement for some competencies between professional groups should be explored further in pursuit of effective multidisciplinary team working.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceNeoplasmsPhysician-Patient RelationsAdolescentCommunicationConsensusDelphi TechniqueHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansNursesPhysiciansSurveys and QuestionnairesTruth DisclosureYoung AdultBRIGHTLIGHTcancercompetencemulti-disciplinary teamTeenagers and young adults

Identifiers

PMID27142859
PMCPMC4861123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.