Expert agreed standards for the selection and development of cancer support group leaders: an online reactive Delphi study
- 245 Downloads
The aim of this study was to develop pragmatic, consensus-based minimum standards for the role of a cancer support group leader. Secondly, to produce a structured interview designed to assess the knowledge, skills and attributes of the individuals who seek to undertake the role.
An expert panel of 73 academics, health professionals, cancer agency workers and cancer support group leaders were invited to participate in a reactive online Delphi study involving three online questionnaire rounds. Participants determined and ranked requisite knowledge, skills and attributes (KSA) for cancer support group leaders, differentiated ideal from required KSA to establish minimum standards, and agreed on a method of rating KSA to determine suitability and readiness.
Forty-five experts (62%) participated in round 1, 36 (49%) in round 2 and 23 (31%) in round 3. In round 1, experts confirmed 59 KSA identified via a systemic review and identified a further 55 KSA. In round 2, using agreement ≥75%, 52 KSA emerged as minimum standards for support group leaders. In round 3, consensus was reached on almost every aspect of the content and structure of a structured interview. Panel member comments guided refinement of wording, re-ordering of questions and improvement of probing questions.
Alongside a novel structured interview, the first consensus-based minimum standards have been developed for cancer support group leaders, incorporating expert consensus and pragmatic considerations. Pilot and field testing will be used to appraise aspects of clinical utility and establish a rational scoring model for the structured interview.
KeywordsOnline Delphi method Cancer survivors Support groups Peer leadership Evidence-based standards
Amanda Pomery is sponsored by Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, supported by the Department of Cancer Experiences Research Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and supported through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors had full control over all primary data and will allow the journal to review the data if requested.
- 4.Grassi L, Johansen C, Annunziata MA, Capovilla E, Costantini A, Gritti P, Torta R, Bellani M, on behalf of the Italian Society of Psycho-Oncology Distress Thermometer Study G (2013) Screening for distress in cancer patients. Cancer 119(9):1714–1721. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27902 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Delisle VC, Gumuchian ST, Kloda LA, Boruff J, El-Baalbaki G, Körner A, Malcarne VL, Thombs BD, Connolly K, Dyas L (2016) Effect of support group peer facilitator training programmes on peer facilitator and support group member outcomes: a systematic review. BMJ Open 6(11):e013325PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W, Rosenberg W, Haynes B (2000) Evidence-based medicine. Churchill LivingstoneGoogle Scholar
- 18.Murphy M, Black N, Lamping D, McKee C, Sanderson C, Askham J, Marteau T (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England) 2 (3):iGoogle Scholar
- 22.Australian Human Rights Commission www.humanrights.gov.au. Accessed 2/02/2017
- 26.Dipboye RL, Wooten K, Halverson SK (2004) Behavioral and situational interviews. In: Thomas JC (ed) Comprehensive Handbook of Psychological Assessment, Industrial and Organizational Assessment, vol 4. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, pp 297–316Google Scholar
- 27.Reeve B, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, Schwartz C, Revicki DA, Moinpour CM, McLeod LD, Lyons JC, Lenderking WR, Hinds PS, Hays RD, Greenhalgh J, Gershon R, Feeny D, Fayers PM, Cella D, Brundage M, Ahmed S, Aaronson NK, Butt Z (2012) ISOQOL recommendations minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 22:1889–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.United States Office of Personnel Management (2008) Structured Interviews: Interview Guide and Evaluation Materials for Structured InterviewsGoogle Scholar
- 29.Public Service Commission of Canada (2009) Structured interviewing: how to design and conduct structured interviews for an appointment process. Assessment Oversight and the Personnel Psychology CentreGoogle Scholar
- 30.Wickham HC, W. (2016) ggplot2: an implementation of grammar of graphics. Available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggplot2/index.html
- 32.Jackson CAS (2002) Support groups for dementia caregivers: predicting facilitator behavior within an ecological model. ProQuest Information & Learning, USGoogle Scholar
- 33.Zordan RD, Juraskova I, Butow PN, Jolan A, Kirsten L, Chapman J, Sedgwick C, Charles M, Sundquist K (2010) Exploring the impact of training on the experience of Australian support group leaders: current practices and implications for research. Health Expect: Int J Publ Particip Health Care Health Policy 13(4):427–440. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00592.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Herron L-M (2005) Building effective cancer support groups. Report to the Department of Health and Ageing, The Cancer Council AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- 36.Noeres D, Park-Simon T-W, Grabow J, Sperlich S, Koch-Gießelmann H, Jaunzeme J, Geyer S (2013) Return to work after treatment for primary breast cancer over a 6-year period: results from a prospective study comparing patients with the general population. Support Care Cancer 21(7):1901–1909PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Pavur EJ Jr (2010) Use job descriptions to support leadership. Psychol Manag J 13(2):119–122Google Scholar