College of Health, Wellbeing and Life Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
College of Health, Wellbeing and Life Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK.
BMJ Open. 2020 Feb 18;10(2):e031591. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031591.
The objective was to the undertake nominal group technique (NGT) to evaluate current exercise adherence measures and isolated domains to develop stakeholder consensus on the domains to include in the measurement of therapeutic exercise adherence for patients with musculoskeletal disorders.
A 1-day NGT workshop was convened. Six exercise adherence measures were presented to the group that were identified in our recent systematic review. Discussions considered these measures and isolated domains of exercise adherence. Following discussions, consensus voting identified stakeholder agreement on the suitability of the six offered adherence measures and the inclusion of isolated domains of exercise adherence in future measurement.
One stakeholder NGT workshop held in Sheffield, UK.
Key stakeholders from the UK were invited to participate from four identified populations. 14 participants represented patients, clinicians, researchers and service managers.
All six exercise adherence measures were deemed not appropriate for use in clinical research or routine practice with no measure reaching 70% group agreement for suitability, relevance, acceptability or appropriateness. Three measures were deemed feasible to use in clinical practice. 25 constructs of exercise adherence did reach consensus threshold and were supported to be included as domains in the future measurement of exercise adherence.
A mixed UK-based stakeholder group felt these six measures of exercise adherence were unacceptable. Differences in opinion within the stakeholder group highlighted the lack of consensus as to what should be measured, the type of assessment that is required and whose perspective should be sought when assessing exercise adherence. Previously unused domains may be needed alongside current ones, from both a clinician's and patient's perspective, to gain understanding and to inform future measurement development. Further conceptualisation of exercise adherence is required from similar mixed stakeholder groups in various socioeconomic and cultural populations.
采用名义群体技术(NGT)对现有的运动依从性测量方法和孤立领域进行评估,以达成利益相关者共识,确定纳入肌肉骨骼疾病患者运动依从性测量的领域。
召开了为期 1 天的 NGT 研讨会。向小组介绍了我们最近的系统评价中确定的 6 种运动依从性测量方法。讨论考虑了这些方法和运动依从性的孤立领域。讨论后,共识投票确定了利益相关者对所提供的 6 种依从性测量方法的适用性以及将运动依从性的孤立领域纳入未来测量的一致意见。
英国谢菲尔德的一个利益相关者 NGT 研讨会。
从四个确定的群体中邀请了英国的主要利益相关者参加。14 名参与者代表患者、临床医生、研究人员和服务经理。
所有 6 种运动依从性测量方法都被认为不适合用于临床研究或常规实践,没有一种方法的适用性、相关性、可接受性或适当性达到 70%的群体共识。有 3 种方法被认为在临床实践中可行。25 个运动依从性结构达到了共识阈值,并支持将其作为未来运动依从性测量的领域纳入。
一个由英国利益相关者组成的混合小组认为这 6 种运动依从性测量方法不可接受。利益相关者小组内部存在意见分歧,突显了在评估运动依从性时,对于应该测量什么、需要哪种评估以及应该从谁的角度进行评估,缺乏共识。可能需要从临床医生和患者的角度,结合当前和以前未使用的领域,以获得对运动依从性的理解并为未来的测量发展提供信息。需要来自不同社会经济和文化群体的类似混合利益相关者小组进一步对运动依从性进行概念化。