| Title: |
Development of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement: a Delphi study |
| Authors: |
Baker, Paul; Kottam, Lucksy; Coole, Carol; Drummond, Avril; McDaid, Catriona; Rangan, Amar; On behalf of the OPAL study group; Khan, Sayeed; Thomson, Louise; Hewitt, Catherine; McNamara, Iain; McDonald, David; Fitch, Judith; Richardson, Gerry; Walker, Reece; Goodman, Amanda; Ronaldson, Sarah; Coleman, Elizabeth; Nouri, Fiona; Narayanasamy, Melanie |
| Publisher Information: |
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd |
| Publication Year: |
2020 |
| Collection: |
HighWire Press (Stanford University) |
| Subject Terms: |
Occupational and environmental medicine |
| Description: |
Objective To obtain consensus on the content and delivery of an occupational advice intervention for patients undergoing primary hip and knee replacement surgery. The primary targets for the intervention were (1) patients, carers and employers through the provision of individualised support and information about returning to work and (2) hospital orthopaedic teams through the development of a framework and materials to enable this support and information to be delivered. Design Modified Delphi study as part of a wider intervention development study (The Occupational advice for Patients undergoing Arthroplasty of the Lower limb (OPAL) study: Health Technology Assessment Reference 15/28/02) (ISRCTN27426982). Setting Five stakeholder groups (patients, employers, orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioners, allied health professionals and nurses) recruited from across the UK. Participants Sixty-six participants. Methods Statements for the Delphi process were developed relating to the content, format, delivery, timing and measurement of an occupational advice intervention. The statements were based on evidence gathered through the OPAL study that was processed using an intervention mapping framework. Intervention content was examined in round 1 and intervention format, delivery, timing and measurement were examined in round 2. In round 3, the developed intervention was presented to the stakeholder groups for comment. Consensus For rounds 1 and 2, consensus was defined as 70% agreement or disagreement on a 4-point scale. Statements reaching consensus were ranked according to the distribution of responses to create a hierarchy of agreement. Round 3 comments were used to revise the final version of the developed occupational advice intervention. Results Consensus was reached for 36 of 64 round 1 content statements (all agreement). In round 2, 13 questions were carried forward and an additional 81 statements were presented. Of these, 49 reached consensus (44 agreement/5 disagreement). Eleven respondents provided an ... |
| Document Type: |
text |
| File Description: |
text/html |
| Language: |
English |
| Relation: |
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/10/7/e036191; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036191 |
| DOI: |
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036191 |
| Availability: |
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/10/7/e036191; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-036191 |
| Rights: |
Copyright (C) 2020, British Medical Journal Publishing Group |
| Accession Number: |
edsbas.387E7DF1 |
| Database: |
BASE |