LaNoue Marianna, Gentsch Alexzandra, Cunningham Amy, Mills Geoffrey, Doty Amanda M B, Hollander Judd E, Carr Brendan G, Loebell Larry, Weingarten Gail, Rising Kristin L
College of Population Health and Department of Family and Community Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut St., suite 401, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Feb 4;3(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0097-2.
Group brainstorming is a technique for the elicitation of patient input that has many potential uses, however no data demonstrate concept saturation. In this study we explore concept saturation in group brainstorming performed in a single session as compared to two or three sessions.
Fifty-two predominately African American adults patients with moderately to poorly controlled Diabetes Mellitus participated in three separate group brainstorming sessions as part of a PCORI-funded group concept mapping study examining comparing methods for the elicitation of patient important outcomes (PIOs). Brainstorming was unstructured, in response to a prompt designed to elicit PIOs in diabetes care. We combined similar brainstormed responses from all three sessions into a 'master list' of unique PIOs, and then compared the proportion obtained at each individual session, as well as those obtained in combinations of 2 sessions, to the master list.
Twenty-four participants generated 85 responses in session A, 14 participants generated 63 in session B, and 14 participants generated 47 in session C. Compared to the master list, the individual sessions contributed 87%, 76%, and 63% of PIOs. Session B added 3 unique PIOs not present in session A, and session C added 2 PIOs not present in either A or B. No single session achieved >90% saturation of the master list, but all 3 combinations of 2 sessions achieved > 90%.
Single sessions elicited only 63-87% of the patient-important outcomes obtained across all three sessions, however all combinations of two sessions elicited over 90% of the master list, suggesting that 2 sessions are sufficient for concept saturation.
NCT02792777 . Registered 2 June 2016.
小组头脑风暴是一种获取患者意见的技术，有许多潜在用途，但尚无数据表明概念饱和度情况。在本研究中，我们探讨了与两到三次会议相比，单次会议进行小组头脑风暴时的概念饱和度。
五十二名主要为非裔美国成年人，患有中度至控制不佳的糖尿病患者，参加了三次单独的小组头脑风暴会议，这是一项由患者为中心的结果研究所资助的小组概念映射研究的一部分，该研究旨在比较获取患者重要结局（PIO）的方法。头脑风暴是非结构化的，以一个旨在引出糖尿病护理中PIO的提示为回应。我们将来自所有三次会议的相似头脑风暴回应合并为一个独特PIO的“主列表”，然后将每次单独会议获得的比例，以及两次会议组合获得的比例，与主列表进行比较。
24名参与者在A会议中产生了85条回应，14名参与者在B会议中产生了63条，14名参与者在C会议中产生了47条。与主列表相比，各次单独会议贡献了87%、76%和63%的PIO。B会议增加了3个A会议中没有的独特PIO，C会议增加了2个A和B会议中都没有的PIO。没有单次会议能达到主列表90%以上的饱和度，但所有两次会议的组合都达到了90%以上。
单次会议仅引出了所有三次会议中获得的患者重要结局的63 - 87%，然而两次会议的所有组合都引出了主列表90%以上的内容，这表明两次会议足以实现概念饱和度。
NCT02792777。于2016年6月2日注册。
