Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39632114›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Engaging Australian healthcare consumers to determine priorities and consensus for precision medicine approaches to detect non-communicable disease in early life: a modified Delphi study.

Tegan Grace, Samantha Hoskins, Kirsty Pringle, Gillian Mason, Melinda Cruz Turner, Keren Ludski, Leila Usher, Nafiseh Ghafournia, Craig Pennell

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Tegan GraceSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia tegan.grace@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4208-0435
Samantha HoskinsSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Kirsty PringleMothers and Babies Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia.
Gillian MasonCommunity and Consumer Involvement, The University of Newcastle Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia.
Melinda Cruz TurnerNICU Lived Network, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Keren LudskiRed Nose Australia, Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia.
Leila UsherSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Nafiseh GhafourniaSchool of Humanities, Creative Industries and Social Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Craig PennellSchool of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0937-6165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesResearch to develop early screening tools to determine an individual's risk of developing adult-onset disease is a growing field. Expectant parents may find themselves with an option in the future to undergo screening to determine not only genetic abnormalities in their child but also their risk of developing adult-onset non-communicable diseases (NCD) such as hypertension, obesity or hypercholesterolaemia. To ensure acceptability and feasibility of new screening tools researchers must work in partnership with healthcare consumers to discern consumers' current understanding and acceptance of these technologies in research and the potential for clinical applications. We sought to engage with healthcare consumers to develop a consensus, using a modified Delphi study design, for the acceptability of (1) screening tools for use within pregnancy that would indicate a child's risk for developing NCD, and (2) targeted early interventions for those identified at a higher risk of developing NCD using precision medicine approaches. The acceptability of future research design and conduct as well as the implications for implementation into routine healthcare were discussed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the non-communicable diseases they believed were of most importance for precision medicine research focus, in line with recent calls for better involvement of healthcare consumers in setting research questions and defining priority areas.

designA modified two-stage Delphi study design including an in-person consumer workshop (stage 1) and online follow-up survey (stage 2), was used to evaluate consumer consensus for research to develop precision medicine tools for early detection and potential intervention to reduce onset of NCDs. The acceptability of research design and conduct and future implications for the implementation of newly developed tools into routine healthcare was also addressed. SETTING AND

participantsWe engaged 76 healthcare consumers in 2020, in the Hunter New England Region, New South Wales, Australia. Participants were recruited from existing healthcare consumer organisations, research programmes and healthcare networks through purposeful selection, with a focus on participants having a broad range of experiences and backgrounds to ensure adequate representativeness. RESULTS AND

conclusionsOur findings indicate the majority (98%) of participants in our study believe early screening for risk of NCD in their children was acceptable, provided it was equitable and clear pathways for referral and support were available.

Indexed as

Delphi TechniqueNoncommunicable DiseasesPrecision MedicineAdultAustraliaFemaleHealth PrioritiesHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPregnancyChronic DiseaseCommunity ParticipationDelphi TechniqueHealthPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID39632114
PMCPMC11624784

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.