To provide international consensus on the competencies required by healthcare professionals in order to provide specialist care for teenagers and young adults (TYA) with cancer.
Modified e-Delphi survey.
International, multicentre study.
Experts were defined as professionals having worked in TYA cancer care for more than 12 months. They were identified through publications and professional organisations.
Round 1, developed from a previous qualitative study, included 87 closed-ended questions with responses on a nine-point Likert scale and further open-ended responses to identify other skills, knowledge and attitudes. Round 2 contained only items with no consensus in round 1 and suggestions of additional items of competency. Consensus was defined as a median score ranging from 7 to 9 and strength of agreement using mean absolute deviation of the median.
A total of 179 registered to be members of the expert panel; valid responses were available from 158 (88%) in round 1 and 136/158 (86%) in round 2. The majority of participants were nurses (35%) or doctors (39%) from Europe (55%) or North America (35%). All 87 items in round 1 reached consensus with an additional 15 items identified for round 2, which also reached consensus. The strength of agreement was mostly high for statements. The areas of competence rated most important were agreed to be: 'Identify the impact of disease on young people's life' (skill), 'Know about side effects of treatment and how this might be different to those experienced by children or older adults' (knowledge), 'Honesty' (attitude) and 'Listen to young people's concerns' (aspect of communication).
Given the high degree of consensus, this list of competencies should influence education curriculum, professional development and inform workforce planning. Variation in strength of agreement for some competencies between professional groups should be explored further in pursuit of effective multidisciplinary team working.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,549,678
of 32,394,827 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#7,549
of 28,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,911
of 327,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#120
of 380 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,394,827 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 28,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,992 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 380 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
