Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how ‘consensus’ is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of ‘experts.’ Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.

There is growing interest in patient-centered care, but there is little guidance about the interventions required for its delivery and whether it leads to better health outcomes. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy of patient-centered care interventions for people with chronic conditions. Thirty randomized controlled trials were identified from health-related databases. The findings indicated that most interventions were based on the notion of empowering care and included attempts to educate consumers or prompt them about how to manage a health consultation. Other common interventions focused on training providers in delivering empowering care. Although it was difficult to draw firm conclusions because of the moderate to high risk of bias of the research designs, this review has shown some promising findings from implementing a patient-centered care approach. There appeared to be benefits associated with this model of care in terms of patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care.

The aim of this study was to explore treatment burden among people with a variety of chronic conditions and comorbidities and their unpaid carers. The burden of living with ongoing chronic illness has been well established. However, the burden associated with proactively treating and managing chronic illness, commonly referred to as ‘treatment burden’, is less understood. This study helps to bridge this gap in our understanding by providing an in-depth analysis of qualitative data collected from a large sample of adults from diverse backgrounds and with various chronic conditions. Using semi-structured in-depth interviews, data were collected with a large sample of 97 participants that included a high representation of people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and indigenous populations across four regions of Australia. Interviews were conducted during May–October 2012, either face to face (n = 49) or over the telephone (n = 48) depending on the participant's preference and location. Data were analysed using an iterative thematic approach and the constant comparison method. The findings revealed four interrelated components of treatment burden: financial burden, time and travel burden, medication burden and healthcare access burden. However, financial burden was the most problematic component with the cost of treatment being significant for most people. Financial burden had a detrimental impact on a person's use of medication and also exacerbated other types of burden such as access to healthcare services and the time and travel associated with treatment. The four components of treatment burden operated in a cyclical manner and although treatment burden was objective in some ways (number of medications, and time to access treatment), it was also a subjective experience. Overall, this study underscores the urgent need for healthcare professionals to identify patients overwhelmed by their treatment and develop ‘individualised’ treatment options to alleviate treatment burden.

There have been growing recommendations to include education in multi-disciplinary interventions targeting chronic pain management. However, effects of this strategy on short- and long-term self-management of chronic pain, remain largely unexplored. 1. To provide an updated overview of studies that report on the impact of patient education in multi-disciplinary interventions, on self-management of chronic pain; 2. To explore associations between education and chronic pain self-management techniques; and 3. To identify the format and duration of suitable chronic pain interventions targeted at patient self-management. Design: Narrative systematic literature review of randomised or controlled study designs. Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO. Participants: Adult patients with chronic pain of any aetiology participating in multi-disciplinary programs that included education. Main outcome measures: Assessments of level of pain, function, quality of life, self-efficacy, self-management, and any other relevant assessments. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods: PRISMA guidelines, Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and TIDieR model. Database searching identified 485 potential papers. After removal of duplicates, and irrelevant articles by title and abstract, 120 full-text articles were reviewed and 27 studies were included in this systematic review. Studies were predominantly from the United States (n = 8; 29.6%). Over one hundred outcome measures were identified across all studies, with significant variation also observed in terms of how chronic pain duration was defined, and how education was delivered to participants. Overall, positive benefits of education were reported. Education, as part of multi-disciplinary programs, is likely to improve self-management and self-efficacy in people with chronic pain of any aetiology. Heterogeneity in terms of: chronic pain duration; educational resources; healthcare professionals; and outcome measures, were identified as limitations. Further research, in the form of Randomised Controlled Trials addressing these limitations, is recommended.