Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34989087›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

The impact of panel composition and topic on stakeholder perspectives: Generating hypotheses from online maternal and child health modified-Delphi panels.

Dmitry Khodyakov, Sujeong Park, Jennifer A Hutcheon, Sara M Parisi, Lisa M Bodnar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The impact of panel composition and topic on stakeholder perspectives: Generating hypotheses from online maternal and child health modified-Delphi panels.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Dmitry KhodyakovRAND Health Care, RAND Corporation, Pardee RAND Graduate School, Santa Monica, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2818-6906
Sujeong ParkSchool of Public Affairs, The Pennsylvania State University - Harrisburg, Middletown, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jennifer A HutcheonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6618-6018
Sara M ParisiDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7094-2912
Lisa M BodnarDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9427-5467

Funding

Innovative approaches to inform evidence-based pregnancy weight gain guidelinesR01HD094777 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BODNAR, LISA M, HUTCHEON, JENNIFER ANNE · 2018 to 2021
$2.1M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD094777
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMultistakeholder engagement is crucial for conducting health services research. Delphi-based methodologies combining iterative rounds of questions with feedback on and discussion of group results are a well-documented approach to multistakeholder engagement. This study develops hypotheses about the impact of panel composition and topic on the propensity and meaningfulness of response changes in multistakeholder modified-Delphi panels.

methodsWe conducted three online modified-Delphi (OMD) multistakeholder panels using the same protocol. We assigned 60 maternal and child health professionals to a homogeneous (professionals only) panel, 60 pregnant or postpartum women (patients) to a homogeneous panel, and 30 professionals and 30 patients to a mixed panel. In Round 1, participants rated the seriousness of 11 maternal and child health outcomes using a 0-100 scale and explained their ratings. In Round 2, participants saw their own and their panel's Round 1 results and discussed them using asynchronous, anonymous discussion boards moderated by the study investigators. In Round 3, participants revised their original ratings. Our outcome measures included binary indicators of response changes to ratings of the low, medium and high severity maternal and child health outcomes and their meaningfulness, measured by a change of 10 or more points.

resultsParticipants changed 818 of 1491 (55%) of responses; the majority of response changes were meaningful. Patterns of response changes were different for patients and professionals and for different levels of outcome seriousness. Using study results and the literature, we developed three hypotheses. First, OMD participants, regardless of their stakeholder group, are more likely to change their responses on preference-sensitive topics where there is a range of viable alternatives or perspectives. Second, patients are more likely to change their responses and to do so meaningfully in mixed panels, whereas professionals are more likely to do so in homogeneous panels. Third, the association between panel composition and response change varies according to the topic (e.g., the level of outcome seriousness).

conclusionsResults of our work not only helped generate empirically derived hypotheses to be tested in future research but also offer practical recommendations for designing multistakeholder OMD panels. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Pregnant or postpartum women were involved in this study.

Indexed as

Child HealthHealth Services ResearchChildDelphi TechniqueFamilyFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPregnancyexpert panelmodified-Delphionline engagementstakeholder engagement

Identifiers

PMID34989087
PMCPMC8957726

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.