Consensus Building Using Modified Delphi Panel and Nominal Group Techniques for Social Prescribing Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Dulce de Fátima Morais de Oliveira, Maria Adriana Pereira Henriques, Paulo Jorge Nogueira, Andreia Jorge Silva da Costa
{"title":"Consensus Building Using Modified Delphi Panel and Nominal Group Techniques for Social Prescribing Intervention in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus","authors":"Dulce de Fátima Morais de Oliveira,&nbsp;Maria Adriana Pereira Henriques,&nbsp;Paulo Jorge Nogueira,&nbsp;Andreia Jorge Silva da Costa","doi":"10.1155/hsc/6765353","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><b>Background:</b> Health interventions have been prioritised worldwide to curb the growth and life impact of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Social prescribing (SP), as a complex health intervention, has shown promise in producing positive outcomes. This study aims to establish an expert consensus on a model and SP intervention’s multicomponents to empower self-care and health literacy in T2DM patients.</p>\n <p><b>Methods:</b> A descriptive design using two consensus-building techniques took place between June and September 2023. The modified nominal group technique (NGT) was used to reach a consensus on the SP intervention model with 12 experts, who participated in two online meetings and voted on a scale of 1–9. In addition, a modified Delphi panel with 10 experts in two online rounds to reach a consensus on the intervention’s multicomponents, who rated the categories of the intervention on a Likert scale of 1–5. Consensus was reached when an agreement level ≥ 75% was obtained. The data were analysed via descriptive analysis, and the consensus level was calculated based on the mean, standard deviation and percentage.</p>\n <p><b>Results:</b> Using the modified NGT, the experts reached a 93.52% consensus on the final model flowchart. In the modified Delphi panel’s first round, 27 original interventions were evaluated. In the second round, one was removed because of low agreement, six were revised, and five new ones were added based on participant feedback. A consensus was achieved on 30 interventions across the six categories (cross-cutting intervention components, physical activity, nutrition, medication management, self-monitoring and well-being).</p>\n <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Both consensus techniques ensure that the SP model and these interventions meet the person’s needs and the community it serves. They allow a better understanding of self-care and health literacy strategies, contributing to future health programs and policies for more efficiently managing T2DM.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48195,"journal":{"name":"Health & Social Care in the Community","volume":"2025 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/hsc/6765353","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Social Care in the Community","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/hsc/6765353","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health interventions have been prioritised worldwide to curb the growth and life impact of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Social prescribing (SP), as a complex health intervention, has shown promise in producing positive outcomes. This study aims to establish an expert consensus on a model and SP intervention’s multicomponents to empower self-care and health literacy in T2DM patients.

Methods: A descriptive design using two consensus-building techniques took place between June and September 2023. The modified nominal group technique (NGT) was used to reach a consensus on the SP intervention model with 12 experts, who participated in two online meetings and voted on a scale of 1–9. In addition, a modified Delphi panel with 10 experts in two online rounds to reach a consensus on the intervention’s multicomponents, who rated the categories of the intervention on a Likert scale of 1–5. Consensus was reached when an agreement level ≥ 75% was obtained. The data were analysed via descriptive analysis, and the consensus level was calculated based on the mean, standard deviation and percentage.

Results: Using the modified NGT, the experts reached a 93.52% consensus on the final model flowchart. In the modified Delphi panel’s first round, 27 original interventions were evaluated. In the second round, one was removed because of low agreement, six were revised, and five new ones were added based on participant feedback. A consensus was achieved on 30 interventions across the six categories (cross-cutting intervention components, physical activity, nutrition, medication management, self-monitoring and well-being).

Conclusions: Both consensus techniques ensure that the SP model and these interventions meet the person’s needs and the community it serves. They allow a better understanding of self-care and health literacy strategies, contributing to future health programs and policies for more efficiently managing T2DM.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
423
期刊介绍: Health and Social Care in the community is an essential journal for anyone involved in nursing, social work, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, general practice, health psychology, health economy, primary health care and the promotion of health. It is an international peer-reviewed journal supporting interdisciplinary collaboration on policy and practice within health and social care in the community. The journal publishes: - Original research papers in all areas of health and social care - Topical health and social care review articles - Policy and practice evaluations - Book reviews - Special issues
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信