Key items for reports of primary care research: an international Delphi study.

Reporting guidelines can improve dissemination and application of findings and help avoid research waste. Recent studies reveal opportunities to improve primary care (PC) reporting. Despite increasing numbers of guidelines, none exists for PC research. This study aims to prioritise candidate reporting items to inform a reporting guideline for PC research. Delphi study conducted by the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Working Group. International online survey. Interdisciplinary PC researchers and research users. We drew potential reporting items from literature review and a series of international, interdisciplinary surveys. Using an anonymous, online survey, we asked participants to vote on and whether each candidate item should be included, required or recommended in a PC research reporting guideline. Items advanced to the next Delphi round if they received>50% votes to include. Analysis used descriptive statistics plus synthesis of free-text responses. 98/116 respondents completed round 1 (84% response rate) and 89/98 completed round 2 (91%). Respondents included a variety of healthcare professions, research roles, levels of experience and all five world regions. Round 1 presented 29 potential items, and 25 moved into round 2 after rewording and combining items and adding 2 new items. A majority of round 2 respondents voted to include 23 items (90%-100% for 11 items, 80%-89% for 3 items, 70%-79% for 3 items, 60%-69% for 3 items and 50%-59% for 3 items). Our Delphi study identified items to guide the reporting of PC research that has broad endorsement from the community of producers and users of PC research. We will now use these results to inform the final development of the CRISP guidance for reporting PC research.

Sturgiss EA ，Prathivadi P ，Phillips WR ，Moriarty F ，Lucassen PLBJ ，van der Wouden JC ，Glasziou P ，Olde Hartman TC ，Orkin A ，Reeve J ，Russell G ，van Weel C ... -  《BMJ Open》

Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement.

Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC. The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Checklist guides reporting of PC research to include the information needed by the diverse PC community, including practitioners, patients, and communities. CRISP complements current guidelines to enhance the reporting, dissemination, and application of PC research findings and results. Prior CRISP studies documented opportunities to improve research reporting in this field. Our surveys of the international, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional PC community identified essential items to include in PC research reports. A 2-round Delphi study identified a consensus list of items considered necessary. The CRISP Checklist contains 24 items that describe the research team, patients, study participants, health conditions, clinical encounters, care teams, interventions, study measures, settings of care, and implementation of findings/results in PC. Not every item applies to every study design or topic. The CRISP guidelines inform the design and reporting of (1) studies done by PC researchers, (2) studies done by other investigators in PC populations and settings, and (3) studies intended for application in PC practice. Improved reporting of the context of the clinical services and the process of research is critical to interpreting study findings/results and applying them to diverse populations and varied settings in PC.Annals "Online First" article.

Phillips WR ，Sturgiss E ，Glasziou P ，Olde Hartman TC ，Orkin AM ，Prathivadi P ，Reeve J ，Russell GM ，van Weel C ... -  《-》

Delphi studies in social and health sciences-Recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting (DELPHISTAR). Results of a Delphi study.

While different proposals exist for a guideline on reporting Delphi studies, none of them has yet established itself in the health and social sciences and across the range of Delphi variants. This seems critical because empirical studies demonstrate a diversity of modifications in the conduction of Delphi studies and sometimes even errors in the reporting. The aim of the present study is to close this gap and formulate a general reporting guideline. In an international Delphi procedure, Delphi experts were surveyed online in three rounds to find consensus on a reporting guideline for Delphi studies in the health and social sciences. The respondents were selected via publications of Delphi studies. The preliminary reporting guideline, containing 65 items on five topics and presented for evaluation, had been developed based on a systematic review of the practice of Delphi studies and a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. Starting in the second Delphi round, the experts received feedback in the form of mean values, measures of dispersion, a summary of the open-ended responses and their own response in the previous round. The final draft of the reporting guideline contains the items on which at least 75% of the respondents agreed by assigning scale points 6 and 7 on a 7-point Likert scale. 1,072 experts were invited to participate. A total of 91 experts completed the first Delphi round, 69 experts the second round, and 56 experts the third round. Of the 65 items in the first draft of the reporting guideline, consensus was ultimately reached for 38 items addressing the five topics: Title and Abstract (n = 3), Context (n = 7), Method (n = 20), Results (n = 4) and Discussion (n = 4). Items focusing on theoretical research and on dissemination were either rejected or remained subjects of dissent. We assume a high level of acceptance and interdisciplinary suitability regarding the reporting guideline presented here and referred to as the "Delphi studies in social and health sciences-recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting" (DELPHISTAR). Use of this reporting guideline can substantially improve the ability to compare and evaluate Delphi studies.

Niederberger M ，Schifano J ，Deckert S ，Hirt J ，Homberg A ，Köberich S ，Kuhn R ，Rommel A ，Sonnberger M ，DEWISS network ... -  《PLoS One》

Pilot test of Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary care (CRISP).

Sturgiss E ，Phillips WR 《-》

Developing a checklist for reporting research using simulated patient methodology (CRiSP): a consensus study.

Simulated patients are increasingly used to measure outcomes in health services but reporting is suboptimal. This study aims to create a checklist for the reporting of simulated patient (SP) methodology. This was a Delphi study. The authors of health service research studies using SP methodology were invited to participate. Round 1 questionnaire assessed the applicability of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) reporting checklist for SP methodology and asked for rewording of/additional items. Responses were thematically analysed to generate Round 2 items in which participants rated each item for importance (seven-point Likert scale) and median, mode and IQR were calculated. In Round 3, participants were invited to rescore their Round 2 responses. Consensus was defined as an IQR ≤ 1 (Extremely important) and median ≤ 2 (Very important). All consensus items were considered for inclusion in the checklist. Similarly, worded items were rationalised and items not specific to SP methodology or other existing checklists were excluded. Twenty-nine authors participated in Round 1 and a further seven for Rounds 2 and 3. Twenty-six responses were analysed for Round 1, 30 for Round 2 and 28 for Round 3. There was consensus on 29 of 54 items in Round 2 and 45 of 63 items in Round 3. The final checklist comprised 28 items. A new reporting checklist to guide the reporting of studies, using simulated patients, complementary to CONSORT or STROBE, has been developed and will now be tested for usability.

Amaratunge S ，Harrison M ，Clifford R ，Seubert L ，Page A ，Bond C ... -  《-》