Modified e-Delphi Process for the Selection of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Children and Families With Type 1 Diabetes Using Continuous Glucose Monitors: Delphi Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) management is complex and associated with significant psychosocial burden. Continuous glucose monitors (CGM) can improve disease management and outcomes and introduce new or exacerbate existing psychosocial concerns. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be used to capture this information, but there is no consensus on which PROMs should be used in pediatric CGM research. OBJECTIVE: Here we describe the process to (1) identify PROMs that could be used to assess the impact of CGMs on pediatric patients with T1D, (2) implement a modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) methodology to arrive at an expert consensus on which PROMs are most suitable for clinical and research applications, and (3) establish a periodicity table for the administration of PROMs over time in a real-world evidence study. METHODS: To identify appropriate PROMs for pediatric patients and families with T1D and CGMs, we conducted an asynchronous, e-Delphi process with a multidisciplinary group of experts from around the country. We identified candidate instruments through a literature review. The 3-round e-Delphi process was conducted via a study website, email, and web-based forms. Participants provided opinions on the usefulness of instruments, age validation, feasibility, time, and frequency of administration. RESULTS: In total, 16 experts participated in the e-Delphi process; 4 of whom consistently participated in all 3 rounds. We identified 62 candidate instruments, which were narrowed down to 12 final PROMs across 5 domains: diabetes distress and burden (n=4), autonomy (n=2), quality of life (n=1), psychosocial (n=3), and technology acceptance (n=2). A quarterly administration schedule was developed to reduce burden on participants. CONCLUSIONS: PROMs can provide critical insights into the psychosocial well-being of patients. The specific measures identified in the paper are particularly well suited for pediatric patients with T1D using CGMs. Clinical implementation could help health care providers, patients, and families to engage in more comprehensive disease management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.226 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".