Application of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology to a Large Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group Evaluating the Validity and Feasibility of Patient-Centered Standards in Geriatric Surgery

Julia R. Berian, Tracey L. Baker, Ronnie A. Rosenthal, Joann Coleman, Emily Finlayson, Mark Katlic, Sandhya A. Lagoo-Deenadayalan, Victoria L. Tang, Thomas N. Robinson, Clifford Y. Ko, Marcia M. Russell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objectives: To explore (1) differences in validity and feasibility ratings for geriatric surgical standards across a diverse stakeholder group (surgeons vs. nonsurgeons, health care providers vs. nonproviders, including patient-family, advocacy, and regulatory agencies); (2) whether three multidisciplinary discussion subgroups would reach similar conclusions. Data Source/Study Setting: Primary data (ratings) were reported from 58 stakeholder organizations. Study Design: An adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) process was conducted in May 2016. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Stakeholders self-administered ratings on paper, returned via mail (Round 1) and in-person (Round 2). Principal Findings: In Round 1, surgeons rated standards more critically (91.2 percent valid; 64.9 percent feasible) than nonsurgeons (100 percent valid; 87.0 percent feasible) but increased ratings in Round 2 (98.7 percent valid; 90.6 percent feasible), aligning with nonsurgeons (99.7 percent valid; 96.1 percent feasible). Three parallel subgroups rated validity at 96.8 percent (group 1), 100 percent (group 2), and 97.4 percent (group 3). Feasibility ratings were 76.9 percent (group 1), 96.1 percent (group 2), and 92.2 percent (group 3). Conclusions: There are differences in validity and feasibility ratings by health professions, with surgeons rating standards more critically than nonsurgeons. However, three separate discussion subgroups rated a high proportion (96-100 percent) of standards as valid, indicating the RAM can be successfully applied to a large stakeholder group.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalHealth Services Research
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Geriatrics
Patient Advocacy
Health Occupations
Information Storage and Retrieval
Postal Service
Health Personnel
Organizations
Surgeons

Keywords

  • Delphi methods
  • Geriatric surgery
  • RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy

Cite this

Application of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology to a Large Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group Evaluating the Validity and Feasibility of Patient-Centered Standards in Geriatric Surgery. / Berian, Julia R.; Baker, Tracey L.; Rosenthal, Ronnie A.; Coleman, Joann; Finlayson, Emily; Katlic, Mark; Lagoo-Deenadayalan, Sandhya A.; Tang, Victoria L.; Robinson, Thomas N.; Ko, Clifford Y.; Russell, Marcia M.

In: Health Services Research, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Berian, Julia R. ; Baker, Tracey L. ; Rosenthal, Ronnie A. ; Coleman, Joann ; Finlayson, Emily ; Katlic, Mark ; Lagoo-Deenadayalan, Sandhya A. ; Tang, Victoria L. ; Robinson, Thomas N. ; Ko, Clifford Y. ; Russell, Marcia M. / Application of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology to a Large Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group Evaluating the Validity and Feasibility of Patient-Centered Standards in Geriatric Surgery. In: Health Services Research. 2018.
@article{276d961c75b5492b8a6fb853d501bbcc,
title = "Application of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology to a Large Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group Evaluating the Validity and Feasibility of Patient-Centered Standards in Geriatric Surgery",
abstract = "Objectives: To explore (1) differences in validity and feasibility ratings for geriatric surgical standards across a diverse stakeholder group (surgeons vs. nonsurgeons, health care providers vs. nonproviders, including patient-family, advocacy, and regulatory agencies); (2) whether three multidisciplinary discussion subgroups would reach similar conclusions. Data Source/Study Setting: Primary data (ratings) were reported from 58 stakeholder organizations. Study Design: An adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) process was conducted in May 2016. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Stakeholders self-administered ratings on paper, returned via mail (Round 1) and in-person (Round 2). Principal Findings: In Round 1, surgeons rated standards more critically (91.2 percent valid; 64.9 percent feasible) than nonsurgeons (100 percent valid; 87.0 percent feasible) but increased ratings in Round 2 (98.7 percent valid; 90.6 percent feasible), aligning with nonsurgeons (99.7 percent valid; 96.1 percent feasible). Three parallel subgroups rated validity at 96.8 percent (group 1), 100 percent (group 2), and 97.4 percent (group 3). Feasibility ratings were 76.9 percent (group 1), 96.1 percent (group 2), and 92.2 percent (group 3). Conclusions: There are differences in validity and feasibility ratings by health professions, with surgeons rating standards more critically than nonsurgeons. However, three separate discussion subgroups rated a high proportion (96-100 percent) of standards as valid, indicating the RAM can be successfully applied to a large stakeholder group.",
keywords = "Delphi methods, Geriatric surgery, RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method",
author = "Berian, {Julia R.} and Baker, {Tracey L.} and Rosenthal, {Ronnie A.} and Joann Coleman and Emily Finlayson and Mark Katlic and Lagoo-Deenadayalan, {Sandhya A.} and Tang, {Victoria L.} and Robinson, {Thomas N.} and Ko, {Clifford Y.} and Russell, {Marcia M.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1475-6773.12850",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Health Services Research",
issn = "0017-9124",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Application of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology to a Large Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group Evaluating the Validity and Feasibility of Patient-Centered Standards in Geriatric Surgery

AU - Berian, Julia R.

AU - Baker, Tracey L.

AU - Rosenthal, Ronnie A.

AU - Coleman, Joann

AU - Finlayson, Emily

AU - Katlic, Mark

AU - Lagoo-Deenadayalan, Sandhya A.

AU - Tang, Victoria L.

AU - Robinson, Thomas N.

AU - Ko, Clifford Y.

AU - Russell, Marcia M.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Objectives: To explore (1) differences in validity and feasibility ratings for geriatric surgical standards across a diverse stakeholder group (surgeons vs. nonsurgeons, health care providers vs. nonproviders, including patient-family, advocacy, and regulatory agencies); (2) whether three multidisciplinary discussion subgroups would reach similar conclusions. Data Source/Study Setting: Primary data (ratings) were reported from 58 stakeholder organizations. Study Design: An adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) process was conducted in May 2016. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Stakeholders self-administered ratings on paper, returned via mail (Round 1) and in-person (Round 2). Principal Findings: In Round 1, surgeons rated standards more critically (91.2 percent valid; 64.9 percent feasible) than nonsurgeons (100 percent valid; 87.0 percent feasible) but increased ratings in Round 2 (98.7 percent valid; 90.6 percent feasible), aligning with nonsurgeons (99.7 percent valid; 96.1 percent feasible). Three parallel subgroups rated validity at 96.8 percent (group 1), 100 percent (group 2), and 97.4 percent (group 3). Feasibility ratings were 76.9 percent (group 1), 96.1 percent (group 2), and 92.2 percent (group 3). Conclusions: There are differences in validity and feasibility ratings by health professions, with surgeons rating standards more critically than nonsurgeons. However, three separate discussion subgroups rated a high proportion (96-100 percent) of standards as valid, indicating the RAM can be successfully applied to a large stakeholder group.

AB - Objectives: To explore (1) differences in validity and feasibility ratings for geriatric surgical standards across a diverse stakeholder group (surgeons vs. nonsurgeons, health care providers vs. nonproviders, including patient-family, advocacy, and regulatory agencies); (2) whether three multidisciplinary discussion subgroups would reach similar conclusions. Data Source/Study Setting: Primary data (ratings) were reported from 58 stakeholder organizations. Study Design: An adaptation of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology (RAM) process was conducted in May 2016. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: Stakeholders self-administered ratings on paper, returned via mail (Round 1) and in-person (Round 2). Principal Findings: In Round 1, surgeons rated standards more critically (91.2 percent valid; 64.9 percent feasible) than nonsurgeons (100 percent valid; 87.0 percent feasible) but increased ratings in Round 2 (98.7 percent valid; 90.6 percent feasible), aligning with nonsurgeons (99.7 percent valid; 96.1 percent feasible). Three parallel subgroups rated validity at 96.8 percent (group 1), 100 percent (group 2), and 97.4 percent (group 3). Feasibility ratings were 76.9 percent (group 1), 96.1 percent (group 2), and 92.2 percent (group 3). Conclusions: There are differences in validity and feasibility ratings by health professions, with surgeons rating standards more critically than nonsurgeons. However, three separate discussion subgroups rated a high proportion (96-100 percent) of standards as valid, indicating the RAM can be successfully applied to a large stakeholder group.

KW - Delphi methods

KW - Geriatric surgery

KW - RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044300683&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044300683&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1475-6773.12850

DO - 10.1111/1475-6773.12850

M3 - Article

C2 - 29569262

AN - SCOPUS:85044300683

JO - Health Services Research

JF - Health Services Research

SN - 0017-9124

ER -