Premium
Consensus principles for wound care research obtained using a D elphi process
Author(s) -
Serena Thomas,
BatesJensen Barbara,
Carter Marissa J.,
Cordrey Renee,
Driver Vickie,
Fife Caroline E.,
Haser Paul B.,
Krasner Diane,
Nusgart Marcia,
Smith Adrianne P. S.,
Snyder Robert J.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
wound repair and regeneration
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.847
H-Index - 109
eISSN - 1524-475X
pISSN - 1067-1927
DOI - 10.1111/j.1524-475x.2012.00790.x
Subject(s) - delphi method , wound care , likert scale , delphi , face validity , medicine , psychology , medical education , nursing , computer science , surgery , clinical psychology , artificial intelligence , developmental psychology , psychometrics , operating system
Abstract Too many wound care research studies are poorly designed, badly executed, and missing crucial data. The objective of this study is to create a series of principles for all stakeholders involved in clinical or comparative effectiveness research in wound healing. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus, using a web‐based survey for survey participants and face‐to‐face conferences for expert panel members. Expert panel (11 members) and 115 wound care researchers (respondents) drawn from 15 different organizations. Principles were rated for validity using 5‐point Likert scales and comments. A 66% response rate was achieved in the first Delphi round from the 173 invited survey participants. The response rate for the second Delphi round was 46%. The most common wound care researcher profile was age 46–55 years, a wound care clinic setting, and >10 years' wound care research and clinical experience. Of the initial 17 principles created by the panel, only four principles were not endorsed in Delphi round 1 with another four not requiring revision. Of the 14 principles assessed by respondents in the second Delphi round, only one principle was not endorsed and it was revised; four other principles also needed revision based on the use of specific words or contextual use. Of the 19 final principles, three included detailed numbered lists. With the wide variation in design, conduct, and reporting of wound care research studies, it is hoped that these principles will improve the standard and practice of care in this field.