{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,31]],"date-time":"2025-12-31T10:45:02Z","timestamp":1767177902641,"version":"build-2238731810"},"update-to":[{"DOI":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.12863.1","type":"new_version","label":"New version","source":"publisher","updated":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,21]],"date-time":"2024-10-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1729468800000}},{"DOI":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.12863.2","type":"new_version","label":"New version","source":"publisher","updated":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,21]],"date-time":"2024-10-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1729468800000}}],"reference-count":23,"publisher":"F1000 Research Ltd","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,21]],"date-time":"2024-10-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1729468800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/100010414","name":"Health Research Board","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","award":["PDG-2016-2"],"award-info":[{"award-number":["PDG-2016-2"]}],"id":[{"id":"10.13039\/100010414","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"publisher"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["hrbopenresearch.org"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["HRB Open Res"],"abstract":"<ns3:p>Background The nominal group technique (NGT) allows stakeholders to directly generate items for needs assessment. The objective was to demonstrate the use of NGT to inform the development of a healthcare app in patients with relapsed myeloma. Healthcare professionals with experience in the care of patients with relapsed\/refractory myeloma were invited to participate. Methods One NGT group was conducted. In the group, health care professionals working in haematology were asked to vote anonymously in order of highest priority, on symptoms previously highlighted by relapsed\/refractory myeloma patients in four focus groups. Results A total of 18 healthcare professionals working in the area of haematology participated in the NGT discussion; consultants (n=6), haematology registrars (n=2), specialist nurses [Advanced Nurse Practitioner\/Clinical Nurse Specialist] (haematology) (n=3), staff nurse (n=1), and \u201cother\u201d health care professionals (n=6). Participants ranged in experience of working with myeloma patients from 2 years to over 27 years. The symptoms voted in highest priority were: Pain, Fatigue, Peripheral Neuropathy, Infection Risk and Steroid Induced Side Effects. Conclusions The NGT was an efficient method for obtaining information to inform a healthcare app.<\/ns3:p>","DOI":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.12863.3","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,21]],"date-time":"2024-10-21T07:15:07Z","timestamp":1729494907000},"page":"21","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/hrbopenres.crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Using nominal group technique to compare patients\u2019 and clinicians\u2019 perspectives on symptoms in multiple myeloma to inform the development of a self management tool for patients with relapsed myeloma"],"prefix":"10.12688","volume":"1","author":[{"given":"Orlaith","family":"Cormican","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-7832-6276","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Maura","family":"Dowling","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"2560","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,21]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref-1","article-title":"Patient and Public Involvement in Health research in Ireland? A Review of progressto date","year":"2016"},{"key":"ref-2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"422-444","DOI":"10.3322\/caac.21252","article-title":"Understanding biology to tackle the disease: Multiple myeloma from bench to bedside, and back.","volume":"64","author":"G Bianchi","year":"2014","journal-title":"CA Cancer J Clin."},{"key":"ref-3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"719-34","DOI":"10.1002\/ajh.24402","article-title":"Multiple myeloma: 2016 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management.","volume":"91","author":"S Rajkumar","year":"2016","journal-title":"Am J Hematol."},{"key":"ref-4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"429-35","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2141.2007.06585.x","article-title":"Safety and efficacy of bortezomib in high-risk and elderly patients with relapsed multiple myeloma.","volume":"137","author":"P Richardson","year":"2007","journal-title":"Br J Haematol."},{"key":"ref-5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"496","DOI":"10.1186\/1471-2407-14-496","article-title":"Understanding what matters most to people with multiple myeloma: a qualitative study of views on quality of life.","volume":"14","author":"T Osborne","year":"2014","journal-title":"BMC Cancer."},{"key":"ref-6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"88-97","DOI":"10.1002\/pon.1710","article-title":"Unmet supportive care needs, psychological well-being and quality of life in patients living with multiple myeloma and their partners.","volume":"20","author":"A Molassiotis","year":"2011","journal-title":"Psychooncology."},{"key":"ref-7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1016-25","DOI":"10.1111\/jocn.12007","article-title":"The impact of an empowering Internet-based Breast Cancer Patient Pathway program on breast cancer patients\u2019 clinical outcomes: a randomised controlled trial.","volume":"22","author":"A Ryh\u00e4nen","year":"2013","journal-title":"J Clin Nurs."},{"key":"ref-8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"484-92. 2004","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1365-2648.2004.03237.x","article-title":"Chronic illness self-management: Locating the \u2019self\u2019.","volume":"48","author":"T Koch","year":"2004","journal-title":"J Adv Nurs."},{"key":"ref-9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1431-45","DOI":"10.1007\/s00520-014-2552-1","article-title":"Treatment-related symptom management in patients with multiple myeloma: a review.","volume":"23","author":"K Colson","year":"2015","journal-title":"Support Care Cancer."},{"key":"ref-10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"655-62","DOI":"10.1007\/s11096-016-0257-x","article-title":"How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques.","volume":"38","author":"S McMillan","year":"2016","journal-title":"Int J Clin Pharm."},{"key":"ref-11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"110","DOI":"10.1186\/s12874-016-0210-7","article-title":"Adapting the nominal group technique for priority setting of evidence-practice gaps in implementation science.","volume":"16","author":"N Rankin","year":"2016","journal-title":"BMC Med Res Methodol."},{"key":"ref-12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"466-92","DOI":"10.1177\/002188637100700404","article-title":"A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning.","volume":"7","author":"A Delbecq","year":"1971","journal-title":"J Appl Behav Sci."},{"key":"ref-13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"875-81","DOI":"10.1038\/sj.bjc.6603662","article-title":"The research priorities of patients attending UK cancer treatment centres: findings from a modified nominal group study.","volume":"96","author":"J Corner","year":"2007","journal-title":"Br J Cancer."},{"key":"ref-14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"186-96","DOI":"10.1053\/j.ajkd.2012.02.339","article-title":"Important outcomes for kidney transplant recipients: a nominal group and qualitative study.","volume":"60","author":"M Howell","year":"2012","journal-title":"Am J Kidney Dis."},{"key":"ref-15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"67-74","DOI":"10.1111\/j.2042-7174.1996.tb00844.x","article-title":"The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research.","volume":"4","author":"A Cantrill","year":"1996","journal-title":"Int J Pharm Pract."},{"key":"ref-16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"509-18","DOI":"10.15171\/ijhpm.2017.11","article-title":"Providing value to new health technology: the early contribution of entrepreneurs, investors, and regulatory agencies.","volume":"6","author":"P Lehoux","year":"2017","journal-title":"Int J Health Policy Manag."},{"key":"ref-17","article-title":"Evaluating a digital self-management tool for people living with multiple myeloma.","author":"O Cormican","year":"2020","journal-title":"Cancer Nursing Practice."},{"key":"ref-18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1713-21","DOI":"10.1111\/jocn.14232","article-title":"Living with relapsed myeloma: Symptoms and self-care strategies.","volume":"27","author":"O Cormican","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Clin Nurs."},{"key":"ref-19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/1609406919866049","article-title":"The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) as a Tool for Facilitating Pan-Disability Focus Groups and as a New Method for Quantifying Changes in Qualitative Data.","author":"J Olsen","year":"2019","journal-title":"Int J Qual Methods"},{"key":"ref-20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"348-61","DOI":"10.1016\/j.soncn.2017.05.009","article-title":"Living with Multiple Myeloma: A Continuum-Based Approach to Cancer Survivorship.","volume":"33","author":"S Kurtin","year":"2017","journal-title":"Semin Oncol Nurs."},{"key":"ref-21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"240-9","DOI":"10.1188\/17.CJON.240-249","article-title":"Steroid-Associated Side Effects: A Symptom Management Update on Multiple Myeloma Treatment.","volume":"21","author":"T King","year":"2017","journal-title":"Clin J Oncol Nurs."},{"key":"ref-22","first-page":"402-6","article-title":"Using a modified nominal group technique as a curriculum evaluation tool.","volume":"36","author":"A Dobbie","year":"2004","journal-title":"Fam Med."},{"key":"ref-23","article-title":"Supplementary_File_1 Voting Card.docx.","author":"O Cormican","year":"2021","journal-title":"figshare."}],"container-title":["HRB Open Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v3\/xml","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v3\/pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v3\/iparadigms","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,21]],"date-time":"2024-10-21T07:15:10Z","timestamp":1729494910000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v3"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,21]]},"references-count":23,"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.12688\/hrbopenres.12863.3","relation":{"has-version":[{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.12863.2","asserted-by":"subject"},{"id-type":"doi","id":"10.12688\/hrbopenres.12863.1","asserted-by":"subject"}]},"ISSN":["2515-4826"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2515-4826","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2024,10,21]]},"assertion":[{"value":"Indexed","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v3#article-reports","order":0,"name":"referee-status","label":"Referee status","group":{"name":"current-referee-status","label":"Current Referee Status"}},{"value":"10.21956\/hrbopenres.13930.r26415, Peter Cudd, CATCH, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, 16 May 2019, version 1, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v1#referee-response-26415","order":0,"name":"referee-response-26415","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>Orlaith Cormican<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 14 Dec 2020<\/i>; Thank you for your comments and taking the time to review our article. Please see our responses below in bold.  The Nominal Group technique appears to be extensively used in myeloma research, the cited references and introduction could better reflect this. For example the closing paragraph of the Introduction could state that \u2018the approach was to determine a consensus using the widely used NGT [refs here].* \n<b>We have added further clarification to same which better reflects this.<\/b> The study design is one amongst many possibilities and some justification is given for its selection. However the authors failed to describe the where and how of the recruitment of the professionals for replication and also no consideration is provided for how homogeneous the context is, i.e. is it reasonable to assume there is widely shared symptoms\/issues of concern, that staff in one service is going to have similar profiles of views, that different types of professionals will have similar views. The latter becomes important for interpretation of findings given the bias in recruits of doctors over nursing staff in their sample (which also isn\u2019t discussed).* \n<b>We&nbsp;have included detail about recruitment. We believe that the sample is homogenous given that the health care professionals all work in the same area, i.e haematology.<\/b> \n<b>Regarding your comment \u201cis it reasonable to assume there is widely shared symptoms\/issues of concern, that staff in one service is going to have similar profiles of views, that different types of professionals will have similar views\u201d The results in Table 2 reflect how health care professionals voted, therefore we don\u2019t consider this an assumption. Regarding your comment on bias: We have included further information regarding bias in terms of decision making, however the sample was chosen at random and we did not know how many doctors would be recruited over nursing staff.<\/b> The authors have found that the method was useful but several questions arise that it would have explained. Why patients and then service staff in the two phases, why not the other way round, or if able to do both have some involved in both phases (possibly separated) and possibly something that would strengthen the findings to different recruits in the implied 4 groups in the latter case?&nbsp;\n<b> We have included the explanation for this at the end of the introduction.<\/b> It may be convenience and\/or feasibility with project resources or indeed the intended use of the list of the top 5.* Just what value can the reader place on the particular findings they have \u2013 so that some judgement can be made about applying the technique elsewhere. The authors have given a vague description of what is next \u2013 but they should make clear how what they have done here fits in with that.*More clarification has been added about why the top 5 symptoms were to be included in the tool.\n<b> I don\u2019t think it is necessary to include further detail about phase 3 of the project.<\/b> In the Methods section we are led to believe that the \u2018Modified NGT \u2013 phase 2\u2019 is the focus of the article. But when you read the conclusions you find that you could make the inference that Phase 1 is part of the NGT. The comments about patients and professionals are able to take part using this technique is generally true and the opening sentences are statements that could be made from other articles from the field (and yet they are not cited to support this conclusion). \n<b>We have removed some information from the conclusion so that the focus remains on the NGT,<\/b> If these were added then a more appropriate positioning of the findings of the authors work could be made by starting a sentence to follow which states the findings in this study confirm user participation.*\n<b>More information added to the conclusion<\/b> I suggest the final sentence of the Conclusions is moderated somewhat concerning the gap, e.g. it is possible for NGT approach to make a particular contribution to the gap between professional and patient values, that contribution very much depends on how it is implemented and biases of those involved (including the researchers). \n<b>All care was taken to reduce bias in phase 1 of the study and this is discussed elsewhere. I don\u2019t see how bias is an issue here.<\/b> &nbsp;It may be useful for the authors to consider that the patients will be the ones who will be asked to routinely adhere to using the app and yet the professionals have to believe in it to prescribe\/recommend it. \n<b>This is discussed elsewhere.<\/b>","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v3#referee-comment-3248","order":1,"name":"referee-comment-3248","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.21956\/hrbopenres.14348.r28915, Angela Stover, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, 15 Mar 2021, version 2, indexed","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v2#referee-response-28915","order":2,"name":"referee-response-28915","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"10.21956\/hrbopenres.14348.r41786, Debra Howell, University of York, York, 03 Sep 2024, version 2, indexed","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v2#referee-response-41786","order":3,"name":"referee-response-41786","label":"Referee Report","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"<b>Orlaith Cormican<\/b>; \n<i>Posted: 16 Oct 2024<\/i>; Hi Debra, Thank you for completing this review. Please see comments in relation to your review (included in italics)  It was unclear if the purpose of the assessment tool was to help people manage their own symptoms (would this be possible for some of the issues), or so they can highlight\/discuss them with clinical staff. \n<i>The purpose of the assessment tool was to help people manage their own symptoms and to highlight or discuss them with staff. I will make the necessary changes to the article so there is clarity.<\/i>   Regarding 'symptom priority', was this in terms of the issues that were most serious, or that had most impact on quality of life for patients, or were most inconvenient? This was unclear and needs to be explained. \n<i>The symptoms were to be prioritised in terms of what had the most impact on patients quality of life and their ability to manage them.<\/i>  I wasn't sure when data were collected as there is no date. \n<i>The research was conducted in 2018.<\/i>  The characteristics of patients from the focus groups are shown in Table 1, not participants in the NGT. For this paper, I would have liked to know if they were representative of the population of myeloma patients.&nbsp; \n<i>The participants in the NGT were clinicians - their characteristics are described under the results section.<\/i>  I would have like to know if the 5 priorities given by the clinicians matched those of patients? Surely that information is relevant and would need further exploration for the app. This is linked to the definition of 'symptom priority' - as noted above. \n<i>The 12 symptoms initially included were described by the patients in the focus groups. We did not explore what was of the highest priority for the patients after they were identified by the clinicians but this could be considered in future work going forward.<\/i>  The sample size for what is essentially a ranking exercise is very small, which raises issues of generalisability. \n<i>This is correct - I will include this as a limitation.  Many thanks, Orlaith Cormican.<\/i>","URL":"https:\/\/hrbopenresearch.org\/articles\/1-21\/v3#referee-comment-3686","order":4,"name":"referee-comment-3686","label":"Referee Comment","group":{"name":"article-reports","label":"Article Reports"}},{"value":"Health Research Board Ireland [PDG-2016-2]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.","order":5,"name":"grant-information","label":"Grant Information"},{"value":"This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.","order":0,"name":"copyright-info","label":"Copyright"}]}}