Background: Motor learning is central to domains such as sports and rehabilitation; however, often terminologies are insufficiently uniform to allow effective sharing of experience or translation of knowledge. A study using a Delphi technique was conducted to ascertain level of agreement between experts from different motor learning domains (i.e., therapists, coaches, researchers) with respect to definitions and descriptions of a fundamental conceptual distinction within motor learning, namely implicit and explicit motor learning. Methods: A Delphi technique was embedded in multiple rounds of a survey designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions of 49 international respondents with expertise related to motor learning. The survey was administered via an online survey program and accompanied by feedback after each round. Consensus was considered to be reached if $70% of the experts agreed on a topic. Results: Consensus was reached with respect to definitions of implicit and explicit motor learning, and seven common primary intervention strategies were identified in the context of implicit and explicit motor learning. Consensus was not reached with respect to whether the strategies promote implicit or explicit forms of learning. Discussion: The definitions and descriptions agreed upon may aid translation and transfer of knowledge between domains in the field of motor learning. Empirical and clinical research is required to confirm the accuracy of the definitions and to explore the feasibility of the strategies that were identified in research, everyday practice and education.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: The concept of osteoarthritis (OA) heterogeneity is evolving and gaining renewed interest. According to this concept, distinct subtypes of OA need to be defined that will likely require recognition in research design and different approaches to clinical management. Although seemingly plausible, a wide range of views exist on how best to operationalize this concept. The current project aimed to provide consensus-based definitions and recommendations that together create a framework for conducting and reporting OA phenotype research.METHODS: A panel of 25 members with expertise in OA phenotype research was composed. First, panel members participated in an online Delphi exercise to provide a number of basic definitions and statements relating to OA phenotypes and OA phenotype research. Second, panel members provided input on a set of recommendations for reporting on OA phenotype studies.RESULTS: Four Delphi rounds were required to achieve sufficient agreement on 11 definitions and statements. OA phenotypes were defined as subtypes of OA that share distinct underlying pathobiological and pain mechanisms and their structural and functional consequences. Reporting recommendations pertaining to the study characteristics, study population, data collection, statistical analysis, and appraisal of OA phenotype studies were provided.CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a number of consensus-based definitions and recommendations relating to OA phenotypes. The resulting framework is intended to facilitate research on OA phenotypes and increase combined efforts to develop effective OA phenotype classification. Success in this endeavor will hopefully translate into more effective, differentiated OA management that will benefit a multitude of OA patients.
MULTIFILE
The four previous articles in this series addressed the myths and facts surrounding lipoedema. We have shown that there is no scientific evidence at all for the key statements made about lipoedema-which are published time and time again. The main result of this misunderstanding of lipoedema is a therapeutic concept that misses the mark. The patient's real problems are overlooked. The national and especially the international response to the series, which can be read in both German and English, has been immense and has exceeded all our expectations. The numerous reactions to our articles make it clear that in other countries, too, the fallacies regarding lipoedema have led to an increasing discrepancy between the experience of healthcare workers and the perspective of patients and self-help groups, based on misinformation mostly generated by the medical profession. Parts 1 to 4 in this series of articles on the myths surrounding lipoedema have made it clear that we have to radically change the view of lipoedema that has been held for decades. Changing our perspective means getting away from the idea of oedema in lipoedema- A nd hence away from the dogma that decongestion is absolutely necessary- A nd towards the actual problems faced by our patients with lipoedema. Such a paradigm shift in a disease that has been described in the same way for decades cannot be left to individuals but must be put on a much broader footing. For this reason, the lead author of this series of articles invited renowned lipoedema experts from various European countries to discussions on the subject. Experts from seven different countries took part in the two European Lipoedema Forums, with the goal of establishing a consensus. The consensus reflects the experts' shared view on the disease, having scrutinized the available literature, and having taken into account the many years of clinical practice with this particular patient group. Appropriate to the clinical complexity of lipoedema, participants from different specialties provided an interdisciplinary approach. Nearly all of the participants in the European Lipoedema Forum had already published work on lipoedema, had been involved in drawing up their national lipoedema guidelines, or were on the executive board of their respective specialty society. In this fifth and final part of our series on lipoedema, we will summarise the relevant findings of this consensus, emphasising the treatment of lipoedema as we now recommend it. As the next step, the actual consensus paper European Best Practice of Lipoedema will be issued as an international publication. Instead of looking at the treatment of oedema, the consensus paper will focus on treatment of the soft tissue pain, as well as the psychological vulnerability of patients with lipoedema. The relationship between pain perception and the patient's mental health is recognised and dealt with specifically. The consensus also addresses the problem of self-acceptance, and this plays a prominent role in the new therapeutic concept. The treatment of obesity provides a further pillar of treatment. Obesity is recognised as being the most common comorbid condition by far and an important trigger of lipoedema. Bariatric surgery should therefore also be considered for patients with lipoedema who are morbidly obese. The expert group upgraded the importance of compression therapy and appropriate physical activity, as the demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects directly improve the patients' symptoms. Patients will be provided with tools for personalised self-management in order to sustain sucessful treatment. Should conservative therapy fail to improve the symptoms, liposuction may be considered in strictly defined circumstances. The change in the view of lipoedema that we describe here brings the patients' actual symptoms to the forefront. This approach allows us to focus on more comprehensive treatment that is not only more effective but also more sustainable than focusing on the removal of non-existent oedema.
DOCUMENT
Singer, I., Klatte, I., Cnossen, I. & Gerrits, E. (2017). Communicatieve redzaamheid bij kinderen met taalontwikkelingsstoornissen: ontwikkeling van consensus over het begrip. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Logopedie, 4, 18-25.
DOCUMENT
In the consensus machine, AI acts as a moderating influence to encourage people to find common ground. Moving beyond individual human-AI interaction, we apply AI technology to create a tool that serves people as a group
DOCUMENT
Dit najaar zijn de langverwachte nieuwe consensuscriteria voor hetvaststellen van ondervoeding en sarcopenie gepresenteerd. Het gaatom de internationale criteria voor de diagnose van ondervoeding ende herziene Europese consensus over de sarcopenie-definitie en decriteria voor diagnose. Beide worden internationaal gedragen en zullen wereldwijd worden aanbevolen als de nieuwe standaard
DOCUMENT
In a participatory style, various types of policy-relevant actors participate and communicate actively during the process of analysis, although the objectives and nature of participation can differ extensively from case to case. The consensus conference has attracted great interest from policy analysts, technology assessment (TA) institutions, and technology policy makers in Europe. The management of complex policy problems is determined by three strategic needs. Policy analysis requires: knowledge management, process management, and network management. The flow of policy-relevant information can be portrayed from the initiator via the policy analyst to the relevant societal stakeholders or participants. The consensus conference is a method to establish active public participation and consultation in science and technology. The interest in consensus conferences by organisations and institutions outside Denmark may partly be explained by developments in science and technology policy in Europe. Human genetics research has been the subject of TA in many countries such as Denmark, the UK and the United States.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: The problem of inconsistent terminology in functional capacity evaluation (FCE) has been widely addressed in the international literature. Many different terms seem to be used interchangeably while other terms appear to be interpreted differently. This may seriously hinder FCE research and clinical use. To gain consensus in operational definitions in FCE and conceptual framework to classify terminology used in FCE.METHODS: A Delphi Survey with FCE experts was conducted which consisted of three rounds of questioning, using semi and full structured questions. The expert group was formed from international experts in FCE. Experts were selected if they met any of the following criteria: at least one international publication as first author and one as co-author in the field of FCE; or an individual who had developed an FCE that was subject of investigation in at least one publication in international literature. Consensus of definitions was considered when 75% or more of all experts agreed with a definition.RESULTS: In total, 22 international experts from 6 different countries in Australia, Europe and North America, working in different health related sectors, participated in this study.CONCLUSION: Consensus concerning conceptual framework of FCE was met in 9 out of 20 statements. Consensus on definitions was met in 10 out of 19 definitions. Experts agreed to use the ICF as a conceptual framework in which terminology of FCE should be classified and agreed to use pre-defined terms of the ICF. No consensus was reached about the definition of FCE, for which two potential eligible definitions remained. Consensus was reached in many terms used in FCE. For future research, it was recommended that researchers use these terms, use the ICF as a conceptual framework and clearly state which definition for FCE is used because no definition of FCE was consented.
DOCUMENT
ObjectiveThe Joint Effort Initiative was endorsed by Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in 2018 as a collaboration between international researchers and clinicians with an interest in the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify and prioritise activities for future work of the Joint Effort Initiative.DesignA survey was emailed to delegates of the 2018 OARSI World Congress attending a pre-conference workshop or with a known interest in OAMPs (n = 115). Delegates were asked about the most important issues regarding OAMP implementation. The top 20 issues were synthesised into 17 action statements, and respondents were invited to participate in a priority ranking exercise to determine the order of importance of the statements.ResultsSurvey respondents (n = 51, 44%) were most commonly female (71%), with an allied health background (57%), affiliated with universities (73%) from Oceania (37%), and Europe/UK (45%). The five highest ranked action statements were:i)Establish guidelines for the implementation of different OAMP models to ensure consistency of delivery and adherence to international best practice.ii)Develop and assess training and education programs for health care professionals (HCPs) delivering OAMPs.iii)Develop and evaluate the implementation and outcomes of novel models of OAMPs.iv)Develop and assess core skill sets and resources for HCPs delivering OA care.v)Develop a framework for enhancing the quality of care provided by OAMPs.ConclusionPrioritising statements will bring focus to the future work of the Joint Effort Initiative in the future and provide a basis for longer-term actions.
DOCUMENT
