Non-Western literature on the core competencies of mental health peer supporters remains limited. Therefore, we used a three-round Delphi study with peer supporters, service users (i.e. someone using peer support services) and mental health professionals to develop a core competency framework for peer supporters in the Chinese context.

The final framework included 35 core competencies, the conceptual origins of which were local (14.3%), Western (20%) and both local and Western (65.7%). They were grouped into five categories in ascending peer supporter role specificity: (1) self-care and self-development, (2) general work ethics, (3) work with others, (4) work with service users and (5) peer support knowledge.

A culturally valid mental health peer support competency framework can minimise role confusion and refine training and practice guidelines. In a Chinese context, peer supporters were valued as generic support companions, whereas functions highlighted in the West, such as role modelling, were perceived as less critical.

Some symptoms are recognised as red flags for cancer, causing the General Practitioner (GP) to refer the patient for investigation without delay. However, many early symptoms of cancer are vague and unspecific, and in these cases, a delay in referral risks a diagnosis of cancer that is too late. Empowering GPs in their management of patients that may have cancer is likely to lead to more timely cancer diagnoses.

To identify the factors that affect European GPs’ empowerment in making an early diagnosis of cancer.

This was a Delphi study involving GPs in 20 European countries. We presented GPs with 52 statements representing factors that could empower GPs to increase the number of early cancer diagnoses. Over three Delphi rounds, we asked GPs to indicate the clinical relevance of each statement on a Likert scale.

The final list of statements indicated those that were considered by consensus to be the most relevant.

In total, 53 GPs from 20 European countries completed the Delphi process, out of the 68 GPs who completed round one. Twelve statements satisfied the pre-defined criteria for relevance. Five of the statements related to screening and four to the primary/secondary care interface. The other selected statements concerned information technology (IT) and GPs’ working conditions. Statements relating to training, skills and working efficiency were not considered priority areas.

GPs consider that system factors relating to screening, the primary-secondary care interface, IT and their working conditions are key to enhancing their empowerment in patients that could have cancer. These findings provide the basis for seeking actions and policies that will support GPs in their efforts to achieve timely cancer diagnosis.

Hwa-Byung is a mental syndrome classified as a “cultural-related syndrome” which reflects the cultural characteristics of Korea in DSM-IV. Hwa-Byung is caused by anger, which is characterized by feelings of anger or resent about unreasonable social violence and trauma. Kwon et al (2008) had developed self-report measure to assess severity of Hwa-Byung but it has several limitations to use in current clinical settings. Therefore, we investigated opinions of experts who have professionality in giving treatment of Hwa-Byung patients in the clinical settings.

The present study aimed to reach consent of oriental neuropsychiatrists’ opinions about the direction of revision of the Hwa-Byung scale.

The Delphi method is a survey method that induces people to freely present their opinions without face-to-face processes and reaches consent through continuous feedback of survey results while ensuring anonymity. The Consensus Panel consists of 16 experts who are Oriental neuropsychiatrists and have experience in diagnosing patients with Hwa-Byung. A total of four surveys were conducted as consensus was reached on the fourth round. Each questionnaire was distributed by mail to a panel of experts and was asked to submit a response after receiving the questionnaire.

The results of the study are as follows. First, common factors for Hwa-Byung include anger, resent/blame, modify memory bias and attention bias for anger events. Second, characteristics of young Hwa-Byung patients include stress caused by social factors and excessive immersion in certain things such as drinking or smoking.

Therefore, when revising the Hwa-Byung scale, it would be necessary to include these factors.

No significant relationships.

Intramuscular injections (IMI) remain a frequent practice in mental health. The available guidelines for IMI in mental health only focus on the technical side of the practices. Moreover, no recent update has been performed to improve practice of IMI in mental health

To assess a formalized consensus agreement regarding the best practice concerning IMI in mental health and to develop practice guidelines.

A two-round Delphi method was used. The scientific committee consisted in one psychiatrist, one orthopaedic surgeon, one infection control practitioner, one hospital pharmacist, one mental health nurse, one nurse exploring care relationship and one nurse educator. From literature review, each expert proposed specific recommendations. The panel experts were asked to rate the appropriateness and the applicability in current practice of each recommendation on a 9-point Likert scale. Panel members were recruited in five mental health institutions. The first round questionnaire was emailed to each respondent on February 2020 and the second one on June. Propositions were considered appropriate and applicable in current practice if the median was >=7. Agreement among experts were judged by the statistical measure of the Interpercentile Range

From the first round, 46 recommendations were retained by 49 nurses. 27 propositions were retained after this second round by 32 nurses. The scientific committee added 12 other recommendations because of their importance in the literature and clinical practice.

This study provides consensus-based recommendations on IMI in mental health. Nursing staff need to be educated about the new guidelines from both the theoretical and clinical perspectives

No significant relationships.

Patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) have worse physical health and reduced life expectancy compared to the general population. In 2009, the European Psychiatric Association, the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes published a position paper aimed to improve cardiovascular and diabetes care in patients with severe mental illnesses. However, the initiative did not produce the expected results. Experts in SSD or in cardiovascular and metabolic diseases convened to identify main issues relevant to management of cardiometabolic risk factors in schizophrenia patients and to seek consensus through the Delphi method.

The steering committee identified four topics: 1) cardiometabolic risk factors in schizophrenia patients; 2) cardiometabolic risk factors related to antipsychotic treatment; 3) differences in antipsychotic cardiometabolic profiles; 4) management of cardiometabolic risk. Twelve key statements were included in a Delphi questionnaire delivered to a panel of expert European psychiatrists.

Consensus was reached for all statements with positive agreement higher than 85% in the first round. European psychiatrists agreed on: 1) high cardiometabolic risk in patients with SSD, 2) importance of correct risk management of cardiometabolic diseases, from lifestyle modification to treatment of risk factors, including the choice of antipsychotic drugs with a favourable cardiometabolic profile. The expert panel identified the psychiatrist as the central coordinating figure of management, possibly assisted by other specialists and general practitioners.

This study demonstrates high level of agreement among European psychiatrists regarding the importance of cardiovascular risk assessment and management in subjects with SSD.

Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments (RREs), whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSEs), such as: mass-casualty incidents (MCIs); low-middle income countries; complex humanitarian emergencies; conflict zones; and prolonged transport times. The application of Translational Science (TS) in the Disaster Medicine (DM) context was used to develop this study, leading to statements that can be used in the creation of evidence-based clinical guidelines (CGs).

What is appropriate SMR in RSEs?

The first round of this modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group conducted at the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Congress in Brisbane Australia on May 9, 2019. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the second mD round questionnaire.

Academic researchers and educators, operational first responders, or first receivers of patients with suspected spinal injuries were identified to be mD experts. Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report; those that were not in agreement but reached consensus were removed from further consideration. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the third mD round.

For subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement.

Twenty-two experts agreed to participate with 19 completing the second mD round and 16 completing the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus. Nine statements did not reach consensus.

Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR CGs in RSEs. The nine statements that did not reach consensus can be further studied and potentially modified to determine if these can be considered in SMR CGs in RSEs.

This study employed the Delphi method, an exploratory method used for group consensus building, to determine the benefits and challenges associated with community engagement in patient-centered outcomes research.

A series of email surveys were sent to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)-funded researchers (n = 103) in New England. Consensus was achieved through gathering themes and engaging participants in ranking their level of agreement over three rounds. In round one, participant responses were coded thematically and then tallied. In round two participants were asked to state their level of agreement with each of the themes using a Likert scale. Finally, in round three, the group was asked to rank the round two themes based on potential impact.

Results suggested the greatest benefit of community engagement is that it brings multiple perspectives to the table, with 92% ranking it as the first or second most important contribution. Time was ranked as the most significant barrier to engaging community. Strategies to overcome barriers to community engagement include engaging key stakeholders early in the research, being kind and respectful and spending time with stakeholders. The most significant finding was that no researchers reported having specific measures to evaluate community engagement.

Community engagement can enhance both research relevance and methodology when researchers are engaged in meaningful collaborations. Advancing the science of community engagement will require the development of evaluation metrics to examine the multiple domains of partnership.

To assess and develop consensus among experienced public health nutrition practitioners from high-income countries regarding conceptualisation of capacity building in practice, and to test the content validity of a previously published conceptual framework for capacity building in public health nutrition practice.

A Delphi study involving three iterations of email-delivered questionnaires testing a range of capacity determinants derived from the literature. Consensus was set at >50 % of panellists ranking items as ‘very important’ on a five-point Likert scale across three survey rounds.

Public health nutrition practice in Australia, the UK, Canada and the USA.

Public health nutrition practitioners and academics.

A total of thirty expert panellists (68 % of an initial panel of forty-four participants) completed all three rounds of Delphi questionnaires. Consensus identified determinants of capacity building in practice including partnerships, resourcing, community development, leadership, workforce development, intelligence and quality of project management.

The findings from the study suggest there is broad agreement among public health nutritionists from high-income countries about how they conceptualise capacity building in public health nutrition practice. This agreement suggests considerable content validity for a capacity building conceptual framework proposed by Baillie et al. (Public Health Nutr 12, 1031–1038). More research is needed to apply the conceptual framework to the implementation and evaluation of strategies that enhance the practice of capacity building approaches by public health nutrition professionals.

To assess and develop a consensus among a European panel of public health nutrition workforce stakeholders (academics and employers) regarding core functions required for effective public health nutrition practice.

A modified Delphi study involving data from two rounds of questionnaires administered among a panel of public health nutrition workforce stakeholders.

Europe.

A panel of fifty-three public health nutrition development stakeholders, including thirty-three academics and twenty employers, sampled from eighteen European countries.

Panellists rated 50 % (19/38) of the initially listed functions as core (i.e. without which public health capacity is limited), using a majority cut-off (>50 %). Out of the nineteen core functions seven were categorised under the heading Intervention management, emphasising high agreement on the importance of managing interventions in public health nutrition work. Only one of the identified core public health nutrition functions was rated differently between academics and employers, suggesting consistent identification of core functions between stakeholder groups.

This consensus on core functions of the public health nutrition workforce in Europe can be used to promote a consistent understanding of the role and value of public health nutritionists as a discrete disciplinary sub-specialty of the public health workforce. The convergence of opinions of academics and employers, as well as comparison with previous international studies, indicates that there is a set of core public health nutrition functions transferable between countries that can be used as a benchmark to guide further development of the public health nutrition workforce in Europe.

To assess and develop consensus among a European panel of public health nutrition stakeholders regarding the competencies required for effective public health nutrition practice and the level of proficiency required in different practice contexts.

A modified Delphi study involving three rounds of questionnaires.

European Union.

Public health nutrition workforce development stakeholders, including academics, practitioners and employers, from twenty European countries.

A total of fifty-two expert panellists (84 % of an initial panel of sixty-two Delphi participants) completed all three rounds of the Delphi study. The panellists rated the importance of fifty-seven competency units possibly required of a public health nutritionist to effectively practice (Essential competencies). Twenty-nine of the fifty-seven competency units (51 %) met the consensus criteria (≥66·7 % agreement) at the second round of the Delphi survey, with the highest agreement for competencies clustered within the Nutrition science, Professional, Analytical and Public health services competency domains. Ratings of the level of competencies required for different levels in the workforce indicated that for a public health nutrition specialist, advanced-level competency was required across almost all the twenty-nine competencies rated as essential. There were limited differences in rating responses between academics and employer panellists throughout the Delphi study.

Competencies identified as essential can be used to review current public health nutrition practices and provide the basis for curriculum design and re-development, continuing education and workforce quality assurance systems in Europe. These are all important tools for systematic and strategic workforce development.