ArticleBMC health services research2026
Indicators for palliative care integration in primary health care: how expert profile shapes consensus in a modified Delphi study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Indicators for palliative care integration in primary health care: how expert profile shapes consensus in a modified Delphi study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntegrating palliative care into primary health care requires clear, feasible, and valid indicators. Consensus-based methods such as Delphi are commonly used for this purpose, but they may overlook differences in how heterogeneous expert panels prioritize indicators. This study aimed to strengthen the methodological approach used to select indicators for assessing the integration of palliative care into primary health care. This study aimed to strengthen the methodological approach used to select indicators for assessing the integration of palliative care into primary health care.
methodsA two-round modified Delphi was conducted with 23 experts from different regions of Colombia. Each indicator was rated for relevance, feasibility, and validity. A priori consensus was defined as ≥70% of ratings ≥7/10 and IQR ≤2. Global content validity indices (S-CVI) and Lawshe's content validity ratio (CVR) were calculated as supportive evidence. Expert profile was quantified using the Metric for Assessing Knowledge and Understanding (MAKU) and used to stratify analyses, To explore data patterns, separate 2×2 SOMs were trained for Strategic and Operational profiles using normalized medians and robust coefficients of variation. Neurons with higher median scores and lower dispersion were interpreted as favorable.
resultsGlobal S-CVI increased from 0.86 in Round 1 to 0.88 in Round 2. By dimension, relevance rose from 0.82 to 0.85, feasibility remained stable at 0.72, and validity increased from 0.62 to 0.71. Stratification by expert profile revealed meaningful differences in consensus patterns. SOM analysis showed both shared and differing prioritization patterns across profiles. After removing overlaps, a final set of eighteen indicators was retained from the dominant neurons of the profile-specific SOMs.
conclusionCombining a modified Delphi with MAKU-based stratification and self-organizing maps provided a transparent and profile-sensitive approach to strengthen consensus-based indicator selection in a heterogeneous expert panel. Differences in expert profile influenced how indicators were prioritized. This approach supports more rigorous and context-aware selection of indicators for monitoring palliative care integration in primary health care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.