TABLE II.

Round 3 results of a Delphi survey to rank Canadian integrative oncology research priorities

Research areaa	Round 3 priority rankings [n (%)]
	1	2	3	4	5
Clinical effectivenessb	43 (90)	2 (4)	1 (2)	1 (2)	1 (2)
Developing practice modelsc	3 (6)	22 (46)	7 (15)	5 (10)	11 (23)
Education and trainingd	0 (0)	10 (21)	16 (33)	17 (35)	5 (10)
Cost effectivenesse	0 (0)	10 (21)	13 (27)	13 (27)	12 (25)
Safetyf	2 (4)	4 (8)	11 (23)	12 (25)	19 (40)

^aFour of the five priority research areas emerging from this Delphi process were renamed after discussions at the 2-day consensus workshop as further described in Table vi.

^bIncludes defining the aspects of care that enhance effectiveness, the mechanisms involved, and the methods for investigating effectiveness, and identifying appropriate outcomes from the perspective of key stakeholders.

^cIncludes defining key steps to establishing and evaluating care, stakeholder involvement, and facilitators and barriers to the practice and uptake of integrative oncology.

^dIncludes strategies to educate practitioners, patients, their caregivers, and the community to ensure safe and effective integrative oncology.

^eIncludes financial and other resource allocations and their relationships to patient outcomes, emphasizing in part the comparative cost-effectiveness of integrative and conventional cancer care.

^fIncludes defining the aspects of integrative oncology that enhance patient safety, the mechanisms by which safety is improved, and methods for assessing patient safety in integrative care models. Direct events (for example, adverse events) and indirect events (for example, diverting a patient from other therapies that may be beneficial) are both considered.