建立长期护理康复方法的标准分类:德尔菲共识研究。

Progress in rehabilitation medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-25 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.2490/prm.20250016
Shigehito Shiota, Kohei Yoshikawa, Makoto Asaeda, Kazuhiko Hirata, Masahiro Abo, Yohei Otaka, Yasuo Mikami, Yukihide Nishimura, Nobuyuki Sasaki, Ryo Momosaki, Masachika Niimi, Shoji Kinoshita, Takuya Hada, Takashi Kawasaki, Kazunari Nishiyama, Yasuhide Nakayama, Miho Shimizu, Shin Kitamura, Yukio Mikami
{"title":"建立长期护理康复方法的标准分类:德尔菲共识研究。","authors":"Shigehito Shiota, Kohei Yoshikawa, Makoto Asaeda, Kazuhiko Hirata, Masahiro Abo, Yohei Otaka, Yasuo Mikami, Yukihide Nishimura, Nobuyuki Sasaki, Ryo Momosaki, Masachika Niimi, Shoji Kinoshita, Takuya Hada, Takashi Kawasaki, Kazunari Nishiyama, Yasuhide Nakayama, Miho Shimizu, Shin Kitamura, Yukio Mikami","doi":"10.2490/prm.20250016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to establish standardized categories of rehabilitation approaches in long-term care and evaluate their appropriateness through a Delphi survey with an expert panel.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We adopted the Delphi method using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. A panel of 15 multidisciplinary rehabilitation experts comprising physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language-hearing therapists was established. We developed a questionnaire comprising 10 main categories and 58 subcategories based on the glossary review and cross-sectional survey. Panelists rated the categories on a Likert scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). The survey was repeated until all categories reached a consensus on \"appropriate\" and \"agreement.\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 15 panelists participated in three rounds of the Delphi survey. In the first round, although all categories were deemed \"appropriate,\" one main category and six subcategories did not achieve \"agreement.\" In the second round, all categories reached the status of \"appropriate\" and \"agreement.\" However, some of the comments needed further consideration. After making minor revisions, all items ultimately reached the status of \"appropriate\" and \"agreement.\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study achieved consensus on the terminology for standardized categories of rehabilitation approaches in long-term care. Future research should assess their reliability and validity using real-world clinical data.</p>","PeriodicalId":74584,"journal":{"name":"Progress in rehabilitation medicine","volume":"10 ","pages":"20250016"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12185881/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishing Standard Categories of Rehabilitation Approaches in Long-term Care: A Delphi Consensus Study.\",\"authors\":\"Shigehito Shiota, Kohei Yoshikawa, Makoto Asaeda, Kazuhiko Hirata, Masahiro Abo, Yohei Otaka, Yasuo Mikami, Yukihide Nishimura, Nobuyuki Sasaki, Ryo Momosaki, Masachika Niimi, Shoji Kinoshita, Takuya Hada, Takashi Kawasaki, Kazunari Nishiyama, Yasuhide Nakayama, Miho Shimizu, Shin Kitamura, Yukio Mikami\",\"doi\":\"10.2490/prm.20250016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to establish standardized categories of rehabilitation approaches in long-term care and evaluate their appropriateness through a Delphi survey with an expert panel.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We adopted the Delphi method using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. A panel of 15 multidisciplinary rehabilitation experts comprising physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language-hearing therapists was established. We developed a questionnaire comprising 10 main categories and 58 subcategories based on the glossary review and cross-sectional survey. Panelists rated the categories on a Likert scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). The survey was repeated until all categories reached a consensus on \\\"appropriate\\\" and \\\"agreement.\\\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 15 panelists participated in three rounds of the Delphi survey. In the first round, although all categories were deemed \\\"appropriate,\\\" one main category and six subcategories did not achieve \\\"agreement.\\\" In the second round, all categories reached the status of \\\"appropriate\\\" and \\\"agreement.\\\" However, some of the comments needed further consideration. After making minor revisions, all items ultimately reached the status of \\\"appropriate\\\" and \\\"agreement.\\\"</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study achieved consensus on the terminology for standardized categories of rehabilitation approaches in long-term care. Future research should assess their reliability and validity using real-world clinical data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in rehabilitation medicine\",\"volume\":\"10 \",\"pages\":\"20250016\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12185881/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in rehabilitation medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2490/prm.20250016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in rehabilitation medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2490/prm.20250016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在建立长期护理康复方法的标准化分类,并通过专家小组的德尔菲调查评估其适用性。方法采用德尔菲法,采用RAND/UCLA适宜性法。成立了一个由15名多学科康复专家组成的小组,包括内科医生、物理治疗师、职业治疗师和语言听力治疗师。基于词汇表回顾和横断面调查,我们开发了一份包含10个主要类别和58个子类别的问卷。小组成员用李克特量表将这些类别从1(非常不合适)到9(非常合适)进行评分。调查重复进行,直到所有类别在“适当”和“一致”方面达成共识。结果:所有15名小组成员都参加了三轮德尔菲调查。在第一轮中,尽管所有类别都被认为是“合适的”,但一个主要类别和六个子类别没有达成“一致”。在第二轮谈判中,所有类别都达到了“适当”和“一致”的状态。但是,有些意见需要进一步审议。经过小幅度的修改,所有条款最终都达到了“适当”和“一致”的状态。结论:本研究对长期护理中康复方法的标准化分类术语达成了共识。未来的研究应该使用真实的临床数据来评估其信度和效度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Establishing Standard Categories of Rehabilitation Approaches in Long-term Care: A Delphi Consensus Study.

Objectives: This study aimed to establish standardized categories of rehabilitation approaches in long-term care and evaluate their appropriateness through a Delphi survey with an expert panel.

Methods: We adopted the Delphi method using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. A panel of 15 multidisciplinary rehabilitation experts comprising physicians, physical therapists, occupational therapists, and speech-language-hearing therapists was established. We developed a questionnaire comprising 10 main categories and 58 subcategories based on the glossary review and cross-sectional survey. Panelists rated the categories on a Likert scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). The survey was repeated until all categories reached a consensus on "appropriate" and "agreement."

Results: All 15 panelists participated in three rounds of the Delphi survey. In the first round, although all categories were deemed "appropriate," one main category and six subcategories did not achieve "agreement." In the second round, all categories reached the status of "appropriate" and "agreement." However, some of the comments needed further consideration. After making minor revisions, all items ultimately reached the status of "appropriate" and "agreement."

Conclusions: This study achieved consensus on the terminology for standardized categories of rehabilitation approaches in long-term care. Future research should assess their reliability and validity using real-world clinical data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信