FAQ

Why is PHES-EF needed?

Public health environmental surveillance has evolved, especially during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, with wastewater surveillance being a prominent example. As surveillance methods diversify and expand, there is a need to evaluate these systems to improve the evidence of wastewater surveillance effectiveness, return-on-investment, accountability, transparency, sustainablity and trust.

There is also a need for such an evaluation framework as the recent adoption of wastewater-based monitoring has resulted in a lack standard analytic techniques, with perferred methods for reporting testing data still remaining unclear (1). PHES-EF aims to address this issue as well, as the framework is intended to be adopted by researchers to determine surveillance system performance and create analogous results for comparison within the field.

What is a Delphi consensus study?

The Delphi method is an iterative multi-round approach that uses a series of sequential surveys, interspersed by controlled feedback, to elicit consensus among a group of individuals while maintaining anonymity (2,3). An electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) method will be used to overcome geographic barriers and allow us to engage panellists internationally across various time zones. Delphi surveys relating to health sciences have typically been conducted over a period of 2-3 rounds (46). Therefore, a two-round e-Delphi survey paired with a subsequent consensus meeting will be conducted to balance feasibility with rigour. Each round will be active for approximately 4-6 weeks to allow panellists sufficient time to participate in the survey, while balancing study timeline constraints (7).

Who is eligible to participate in the study?

The eligibiligy criteria for e-Delphi survey panellists can be found here.

References

1.
Manuel DG, Delatolla R, Fisman DN, Fuzzen M, Graber T, Katz GM, et al. The Role of Wastewater Testing for SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance. Science Briefs of Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table [Internet]. 2021 Aug 26;2(40). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.47326/ocsat.2021.02.40.1.0
2.
Tricco ACT, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine [Internet]. 2018 Oct 2;169(7). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
3.
Nasa P, Jain R, Juneja D. Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World Journal of Methodology [Internet]. 2021 Jul 20;11(4). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116
4.
Spranger J, Homberg A, Sonnberger M, Niederberger M. Reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques in health sciences: A methodological review. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen [Internet]. 2022 Jun 16;172. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.zefq.2022.04.025
5.
Shang Z. Use of Delphi in health sciences research: A narrative review. Medicine [Internet]. 2023 Feb 17;102(7). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000032829
6.
Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. World Journal of Methodology [Internet]. 2017 Feb 17;31(8). Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0269216317690685
7.
Niederberger M, Spranger JS. Delphi Technique in Health Sciences: A Map. Frontiers in Public Health [Internet]. 2020 Sep 22;8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00457