Dreesens Dunja, Kremer Leontien, Burgers Jako, van der Weijden Trudy
Maastricht University/School CAPHRI, Department of Family Medicine, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, the Netherlands; Knowledge Institute of Medical Specialists, P.O. Box 3320, 3502 ZB Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Department of Paediatrics, Emma Children's Hospital/Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC, P.O. Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Princess Maxima Centre, Postbus 113, 3720 AC Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Health Policy. 2020 May;124(5):531-539. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.02.005. Epub 2020 Feb 21.
A review of tools for knowledge translation and decision support yielded an abundance of tool types and confusion over the definitions of these knowledge tools. The aim of this study was to limit the number of tool types, reach consensus on their definitions and clarify their intended use.
We used the RAND-modified Delphi approach to select a core set of knowledge tools and to reach agreement on the tools' definitions. The knowledge tool types were scored using a Likert scale in two Delphi rounds on importance; the provided definitions were also scored and commented on by the experts.
Over 20 experts from parties involved with development of knowledge and decision support tools limited the number of tool types from 34 to 13. The Delphi-participants reached consensus on nine tools as being important for knowledge translation and supporting (shared) decision-making. Furthermore, they reached consensus on the definition of five of the 13 tools.
CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: A large group of experts, representatives of Dutch knowledge tool developers, managed to reach consensus on a core set of 13 knowledge tool types for the Netherlands. Implementing the use of this set and limiting the expansion with other tool types remains challenging.
对知识转化和决策支持工具的回顾发现，工具类型繁多，且对这些知识工具的定义存在混淆。本研究的目的是减少工具类型的数量，就其定义达成共识，并阐明其预期用途。
我们采用兰德改良德尔菲法来选择一组核心知识工具，并就工具的定义达成一致。在两轮德尔菲法中，使用李克特量表对知识工具类型的重要性进行评分；专家们也对提供的定义进行评分并发表评论。
来自知识和决策支持工具开发相关方的20多名专家将工具类型的数量从34种减少到13种。德尔菲法参与者就九种对知识转化和支持（共同）决策很重要的工具达成了共识。此外，他们就13种工具中的五种工具的定义达成了共识。
结论/讨论：一大群专家，即荷兰知识工具开发者的代表，成功地就荷兰的一组13种核心知识工具类型达成了共识。实施这套工具的使用并限制其他工具类型的扩展仍然具有挑战性。
