Blaschke Sarah, O'Callaghan Clare C, Schofield Penelope
Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, East Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Faculty of Medicine, Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 8;7(3):e013527. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013527.
Opportunities to engage with nature have shown relevance in experiences of health and recovery of patients with cancer and are attracting interest in cancer care practice and design. Such healthcare innovations can widen the horizon of possible supportive care solutions but require deliberate and rigorous investigation to ensure responsible action is taken and wastage avoided. This protocol outlines a study designed to solicit knowledge from relevant experts drawn from a range of healthcare practitioners, management representatives, designers and researchers to explore levels of opinion consensus for determining opportunities for, and barriers to, providing helpful nature engagement in cancer care settings.
A 4-round modified electronic Delphi methodology will be used to conduct a structured, iterative feedback process for querying and synthesising expert opinion. Round 1 administers an open-ended questionnaire to a panel of selected, relevant experts who will consider the own recommendations of patients with cancer for nature engagement (drawn from a preceding investigation) before contributing salient issues (items) with relevance to the topic. Round 2 circulates anonymised summaries of responses back to the experts who verify and, if they wish, reconsider their own responses. Rounds 3 and 4 determine and rank experts' top 10 items using a 10-point Likert-type scale. Descriptive statistics (median and mean scores) will be calculated to indicate the items' relative importance. Levels of consensus will be explored with consensus defined as 75% agreement.
Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the Institution's Human Research Ethics Committee (blinded for review). It is anticipated that the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in a variety of forums.
接触自然的机会已显示出与癌症患者的健康和康复体验相关，并且在癌症护理实践和设计中引起了关注。此类医疗创新可以拓宽可能的支持性护理解决方案的范围，但需要进行审慎而严谨的调查，以确保采取负责任的行动并避免浪费。本方案概述了一项研究，旨在从一系列医疗从业者、管理代表、设计师和研究人员等相关专家那里获取知识，以探索意见共识水平，从而确定在癌症护理环境中提供有益的自然接触的机会和障碍。
将采用四轮改进的电子德尔菲法进行结构化的迭代反馈过程，以查询和综合专家意见。第一轮向选定的相关专家小组发放开放式问卷，这些专家在提出与该主题相关的突出问题（项目）之前，将考虑癌症患者关于自然接触的自身建议（来自先前的调查）。第二轮将匿名的回复摘要反馈给专家，专家进行核实，并可根据自身意愿重新考虑自己的回复。第三轮和第四轮使用10分制的李克特量表确定并排列专家的前10项。将计算描述性统计数据（中位数和平均分）以表明各项的相对重要性。将探索共识水平，共识定义为75%的一致性。
本研究已获得该机构人类研究伦理委员会的伦理批准（为便于审查进行了盲审）。预计研究结果将发表在同行评审期刊上，并在各种论坛上展示。
