Open AccessUsing Delphi methodology in the development of a new patient‐reported outcome measure for stroke survivors with visual impairment
Author(s) -
Hepworth Lauren R.,
Rowe Fiona J.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
brain and behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.915
H-Index - 41
ISSN - 2162-3279
DOI - 10.1002/brb3.898
Subject(s) - stroke (engine) , categorization , delphi method , quality of life (healthcare) , visual impairment , medicine , physical therapy , item bank , psychology , psychometrics , clinical psychology , psychiatry , nursing , item response theory , mechanical engineering , engineering , philosophy , statistics , mathematics , epistemology
The aim of this study was to ascertain what items stroke survivors and stroke care professionals think are important when assessing quality of life for stroke survivors with visual impairment for inclusion in the new patient‐reported outcome measure. Methods A reactive Delphi process was used in a three‐round electronic‐based survey. The items presented consisted of 62 items originally sourced from a systematic review of existing vision‐related quality of life instruments and stroke survivor interviews, reduced and refined following a ranking exercise and pilot with stroke survivors with visual impairment. Stakeholders (stroke survivors/clinicians) were invited to take part in the process. A consensus definition of ≥70% was decided a priori. Participants were asked to rank importance on a 9‐point scale and categorize the items by relevance to types of visual impairment following stroke or not relevant. Analysis of consensus, stability, and agreement was conducted. Results In total, 113 participants registered for the Delphi survey of which 47 (41.6%) completed all three rounds. Response rates to the three rounds were 78/113 (69.0%), 61/76 (81.3%), and 49/64 (76.6%), respectively. The participants included orthoptists (45.4%), occupational therapists (44.3%), and stroke survivors (10.3%). Consensus was reached on 56.5% of items in the three‐round process, all for inclusion. A consensus was reached for 83.8% in the categorization of items. The majority (82.6%) of consensus were for relevant to ‘all visual impairment following stroke’; two items were deemed ‘not relevant’. Conclusion The lack of item reduction achieved by this Delphi process highlights the need for additional methods of item reduction in the development of a new PROM for visual impairment following stroke. These results will be considered alongside Rasch analysis to achieve further item reduction. However, the Delphi survey remains important as it provides clinical and patient insight into each item rather than purely relying on the psychometric data.