Skip to main content

Table 3 Clinical approach domains and Delphi survey importance ratings

From: The desire to die in palliative care: a sequential mixed methods study to develop a semi-structured clinical approach

 Mean (Standard Deviation)Consensusa
Round 1bRound 2cpRound 1Round 2Increase
A – Usage Notes
 1. Usage notesd4.32 (0.91) [5]92.6%
B – Conversation Aspects
 2. Actively building the relationship4.64 (0.85)92.6%
 3. Proactively addressing desire to die4.01 (0.94)4.16 (0.92)<  0.0574.5%83.2%8.7%
 4. Closure of discussion4.62 (0.74)92.6%
 5. After discussion4.64 (0.65)94.0%
C – Classification, Meaning and Functions
 6. Classification of desire to die4.26 (1.0)4.37 (0.80)0.1085.2%90.6%5.4%
 7. Background and meanings of desire to die4.81 (0.50)97.3%
 8. Functions of desire to die4.31 (1.07)4.64 (0.73)<  0.0183.9%95.3%11.4%
D – (Self-)Reflection
 9. Conscious engagement with own attitudes and emotions4.77 (0.53)97.3%
 10. Self-protection4.74 (0.53)96.0%
E – Further Recommended Action
 11. Further recommended action4.53 (0.85)4.68 (0.56)0.0787.9%95.3%7.4%
  1. a Likert scale items were labeled ‘5’ (‘very important’) to ‘1’ (‘not important at all) with the option to report ‘don’t know’ (exclusion from analysis). Consensus was assumed if participants rated domains with ‘4’ (‘quite important’) or ‘5’ (‘very important’). Percentages are quotas of all participants who answered a respective question, not of the entire sample
  2. b For all ratings the full range of possible answers was used except for ‘conscious engagement with own attitudes and emotions’ (Min = 2, Max = 5) and ‘self-protection’ (Min = 3, Max = 5)
  3. c For all ratings the full range of possible answers was used expect for ‘further recommended action’ (Min = 2, Max = 5)
  4. d Domain added after round 1