Table 4.
Potential reporting items in Delphi round 2 reporting respondent votes to include, require or recommend items
| Potential reporting items Ranked by % voting to include item then by % voting to require item |
Delphi round 2, N=89 | |||
| Include item | Among respondents Voting to include item* | |||
| Require item* | Recommend Iitem* | |||
| 1 | Discuss implications of study findings for research, patient care, education and policy with specific focus on primary care.† | 99% (86/87) | 88% (73/86) | 12% (10/86) |
| 2 | Describe the patients and populations in sufficient detail to allow comparison to other primary care patient populations.† | 97% (84/87) | 70% (59/84) | 29% (24/84) |
| 3 | Describe the research processes and how these might influence the validity, generalisability and applicability of the study findings for primary care practice. (Examples: recruitment, incentives, implementation, study supports not routinely available in practice.) | 97% (84/87) | 60% (50/84) | 39% (33/84) |
| 4 | Use person-focused language to refer to populations and participants in the research.† | 96% (85/89) | 48% (41/85) | 51% (43/85) |
| 5 | Include ‘primary care’ and/or discipline-specific terms in the title, abstract and keywords. (Discipline-specific terms include general practice, family medicine, nursing, general internal medicine, general paediatrics and other primary care team members.) | 93% (83/89) | 66% (55/83) | 34% (28/83) |
| 6 | Describe interventions and their implementation in sufficient detail to allow readers to judge applicability to routine practice in a variety of primary care settings. (Examples: resources required, sustainability, challenges faced, solutions adopted.)‡ | 95% (83/87) | 63% (52/83) | 36% (30/83) |
| 7 | Describe the healthcare system in sufficient detail to allow comparisons to other systems. (Examples: access to care, organisation of primary care, payment system, universal care or coverage, patient self-referral to consultants, payment of medication, technology including electronic health records, others.) | 94% (82/87) | 56% (45/82) | 44% (36/82) |
| 8 | Describe how primary care patients, practicing clinicians, community members and other stakeholders were involved in the research process.‡ | 91% (79/87) | 46% (36/79) | 54% (43/79) |
| 9 | Explain the rationale for the research question and how it relates to primary care.† | 90% (79/88) | 57% (45/79) | 43% (34/79) |
| 10 | Describe if and how study measures have been validated in primary care populations or settings. | 90% (78/87) | 55% (43/78) | 45% (35/78) |
| 11 | Describe how study outcome measures are meaningful to primary care patients and their care.† | 90% (78/87) | 40% (31/78) | 58% (45/78) |
| 12 | If clinical research focuses on a single disease, report if multimorbidity is present and how it might affect interpretation of the study findings. | 89% (77/87) | 51% (39/77) | 49% (38/77) |
| 13 | Specify if the study focus is single clinical encounters or longitudinal courses of care for a clinical condition (eg, episode of care vs episode of illness). | 83% (72/87) | 27% (19/72) | 72% (51/72) |
| 14 | Describe the magnitude or importance of the topic under study in the primary care setting. (Examples: disease prevalence, burden of suffering, disability.) | 80% (70/87) | 56% (38/70) | 43% (30/70) |
| 15 | Describe any grouping of patients, clinicians, teams or clinical settings and how it is addressed in the analysis. | 75% (65/87) | 45% (29/65) | 55% (36/65) |
| 16 | Identify the theory, model or framework used and explain why it is appropriate to the research question in primary care.§ | 71% (62/87) | 26% (16/62) | 73% (45/62) |
| 17 | Report categories of clinicians separately or provide a rationale for aggregating different groups. | 70% (61/87) | 25% (15/61) | 74% (45/61) |
| 18 | Report findings in forms useful to primary care clinicians and patients. (Examples: number needed to treat, absolute risks instead of just relative risks, etc.) | 63% (55/87) | 36% (20/55) | 60% (33/55) |
| 19 | Describe the backgrounds of members of the research team and the team’s familiarity with primary care. | 61% (53/87) | 34% (18/53) | 62% (33/53) |
| 20 | Discuss the impacts of any recommendations on other demands and priorities in primary care practice.† | 52% (45/87) | 22% (10/45) | 78% (35/45) |
| 21 | When collecting and reporting personal characteristics of study participants, define, classify and identify the characteristics. Describe the source of data and the rationale for inclusion.† | 51% (44/87) | 52% (23/44) | 45% (20/44) |
| 22 | Specify if study patients have existing relationships with the clinicians/teams or are new patients.† | 48% (42/87) | 36% (15/42) | 62% (26/42) |
| 23 | In studies of patients with a clinical condition, specify if it is acute or chronic, new or recurrent.† | 48% (42/87) | 31% (13/42) | 69% (29/42) |
| 24 | Describe the membership, roles and collaboration of the team delivering primary care to the patient. | 46% (40/87) | 18% (7/40) | 80% (32/40) |
| 25 | For each category of clinician, report profession, specialty and qualifications. (Examples: physicians, certified family physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, registered dieticians, masters degree social workers.) | 40% (35/87) | 20% (7/35) | 80% (28/35) |
Please note that this is not the final Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care guidance.
Table lists reporting items presented to Delphi participants, not final recommendations for research reporting.
*For each question, some respondents did not answer or selected ‘unsure’, so the total require and recommend does not equal the total Include.
†Item substantially reworded in round 2 from round 1.
‡New item in round 2 combined from two items from round 1.
§New item added in round 2.