Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of Delphi rounds 1–3 rankings of reporting items

From: Programme Reporting Standards (PRS) for improving the reporting of sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health programmes

Round 1 (N = 43)

Round 2 (N = 29)

Round 3 (N = 20)

Original items (systematic review)

Rating scores

Category of importance (% of respondents)a

Revised items post round 1

Rating scores

Category of importance (% of respondents)a

Revised items post round 2

Item rankingb

 

Mean (SD)

Ess.

Imp.

Notimp.

 

Mean (SD)

Ess.

Imp.

Notimp.

  

Programme Preparation

    

Programme Preparation

    

Programme Preparation

 

1. Programme name

6.9 (2.2)

58.1

37.2

4.7

1. Programme name

7.2 (1.7)

62.1

34.5

3.5

1. Programme name

Suppl.

2. Overall goal/objectives – anticipated impact

8.8 (0.6)

97.7

2.3

2. Objectives and anticipated effects

8.7 (0.7)

96.6

3.5

2. Objectives and anticipated effects

Ess.

3. Target population

8.4 (1.4)

93.0

4.7

2.3

3. Target population and area

8.5 (0.8)

96.6

3.5

3. Target population and area

Ess.c

4. Organization/agency

6.4 (2.0)

48.8

44.2

7

4. Partners and stakeholder involvement

7 (1.5)

65.5

34.5

4. Partners and stakeholder involvement

Suppl.

5. Funding source

6.2 (1.7)

39.5

58.1

2.3

5. Funding source

6.4 (1.7)

44.8

48.4

6.9

5. Funding source

Suppl.

6. Programme design process

7.2 (1.6)

69.8

27.9

2.3

6. Programme design process

7 (1.5)

62.1

37.9

 

6. Programme design process

Suppl.

7. Theoretical foundation

7.3 (1.8)

79.1

16.3

4.7

7. Theory and/or logic model

7.6 (1.4)

82.8

13.8

3.5

7. Theory and/or logic model

Ess.

8. Program manual

6.7 (1.6)

55.8

41.9

2.3

8. Program manual

5.8 (1.8)

41.4

48.3

10.3

8. Program manual

Suppl.

9. Implementation strategy

7.8 (1.4)

81.4

18.6

9. Implementation strategy

7.8 (1.2)

82.8

17.2

9. Implementation strategy

Ess.

10. Evaluation plans

8.4 (1.1)

93.0

7.0

10. Evaluation plans

7.9 (1.2)

85.7

14.3

10. Evaluation plans

Ess.

 

11. Ethical considerations

7.4 (1.4)

72.4

27.6

11. Ethical considerations

Suppl.

12. Dissemination plans

6.5 (1.9)

55.2

41.4

3.5

12. Dissemination plans

Suppl.

11. Piloting of activities

 

79.1

20.9

13. Piloting of activities

7 (1.2)

62.1

37.9

13. Piloting of activities

Suppl.

Programme

   

Programme

   

Programme

 

Implementation

    

Implementation

    

Implementation

 

12. Components/activities

8.4 (1.1)

88.4

11.6

14. Components/activities

8.3 (1.2)

89.7

10.3

14. Components/

activities

Ess.

13. Complexity

7.2 (1.4)

66.7

33.3

15. Complexity

6.8 (1.2)

37.9

62.1

Merged with #14

14. Standardisation

7.5 (1.3)

81.4

18.6

16. Standardisation and tailoring

7.7 (1)

86.2

13.8

15. Standardisation and tailoring

Ess.

15. Innovation

6.2 (1.7)

44.2

48.8

7.0

Merged with #14

16. Materials

7.2 (1.3)

72.1

27.9

17. Materials

6.8 (1.6)

58.6

37.9

3.5

16. Materials

Suppl.

17. Timing (when)

8.0 (1.4)

83.3

16.7

18. Timing (when)

7.9 (1.4)

79.3

20.7

17. Timing (when)

Ess.c

18. Setting (where)

8.5 (1.0)

92.9

7.1

19. Setting (where)

8.6 (0.8)

96.6

3.5

18. Setting (where)

Ess.

19. Dose and intensity (how much)

8.4 (1.1)

92.9

7.1

20. Dose and intensity (how much)

8 (1.2)

86.2

13.8

19. Dose and intensity (how much)

Ess.

20. Provider characteristics (by whom)

7.3 (1.5)

71.4

28.6

21. Provider/staff characteristics (by whom)

7.3 (1.4)

72.4

27.6

20. Provider/staff characteristics (by whom)

Suppl.

21. Provider/staff training

7.3 (1.6)

69.1

31

22. Provider/staff training

7.1 (1.7)

65.5

31.0

3.5

21. Provider/staff training

Suppl.

22. Provider reflexivity

6.4 (1.9)

54.8

35.7

9.5

23. Provider reflexivity

6.2 (1.4)

46.4

53.6

22. Provider reflexivity

Suppl.

23. Participant recruitment

7.8 (1.4)

78.6

21.4

24. Participant recruitment

7.5 (1.3)

75.0

25.0

23. Participant recruitment

Suppl.

24. Participants (who)

8.2 (1.1)

92.9

7.1

25. Participants (who)

8.2 (1.2)

86.2

13.8

24. Participants (who)

Ess.

25. Participant preparation

7.0 (1.6)

66.7

31.0

2.3

26. Participant preparation

7.1 (1.4)

60.7

39.3

25. Participant preparation

Suppl.

26. Methods used to deliver activities (how)

8.0 (1.2)

85.7

14.3

27. Methods used to deliver activities (how)

8 (1.2)

82.8

17.2

26. Methods used to deliver activities (how)

Ess.

27. Efforts to ensure fidelity of participants

7.7 (1.3)

82.9

17.1

28. Efforts to increase and sustain participation

7.6 (1.3)

79.3

20.7

27. Efforts to increase and sustain participation

Ess.c

28. Efforts to ensure fidelity of providers/staff

7.9 (1.1)

88.1

11.9

29. Efforts to ensure provider adherence to protocol

7.7 (1.2)

85.7

14.3

28. Efforts to ensure provider adherence to protocol

Ess.

 

30. Monitoring of the programme implementation

7.6 (1.2)

82.1

17.9

29. Monitoring of the programme implementation

Ess.

29. Acceptability

7.9 (1.1)

88.1

11.9

31. Acceptability

7.3 (1.4)

72.4

27.6

30. Acceptability

Suppl.

30. Appropriateness

7.7 (1.2)

85.7

14.3

32. Appropriateness

7.2 (1.2)

69.0

31.0

31. Appropriateness

Suppl

31. Feasibility/Practicality

8.0 (1.1)

90.5

9.5

33. Feasibility/Practicality

7.9 (1.0)

89.7

10.3

32. Feasibility/Practicality

Ess.

32. Adoption

8.5 (1.0)

92.9

7.1

34. Adoption

8.2 (0.9)

96.6

3.5

33. Adoption

Ess.

33. Coverage/Reach

8.1 (1.1)

90.5

9.5

35. Coverage/Reach

8 (1.1)

93.1

6.9

34. Coverage/Reach

Ess.

34. Attrition

8.1 (1.1)

88.1

11.9

36. Attrition

7.7 (1.1)

82.8

17.2

35. Attrition

Ess.

35. Unexpected end of programme

8.5 (0.8)

97.6

2.4

37. Unexpected end of programme

8.1 (1.2)

89.3

10.7

36. Unexpected end of programme

Ess,

36. Reversibility

7.1 (1.3)

65.8

34.2

38. Reversibility

6.5 (1.3)

46.2

53.9

37. Reversibility

Suppl.

37. Contamination of activities

7.3 (1.4)

69.1

30.9

39. Contamination of activities

7.3 (1.0)

74.1

25.9

Merged with #35

 

38. Fidelity

8.2 (1.0)

90.2

9.8

40. Fidelity

8.4 (0.9)

92.9

7.1

38. Fidelity

Ess.

39. Reasons for low fidelity

7.9 (1.1)

88.1

11.9

41. Reasons for low fidelity

7.9 (1.1)

85.2

14.8

Merged with #38

 

40. Sustainability

8.3 (1.1)

88.1

11.9

Moved to #49

      

41. Costs of implementation

8.2 (1.0)

92.9

7.1

42. Costs of implementation

8.1 (1.1)

93.1

6.9

39. Implementation costs/resources

Ess.

Programme Evaluation

   

Programme Evaluation

   

Programme Evaluation

 

42. Process evaluation methods

8.5 (0.9)

95.1

4.9

43. Process evaluation methods

8.3 (1.0)

89.7

10.3

40. Process evaluation methods

Ess.

43. Effect of implementation process on results

8.3 (1.0)

95.0

5.0

44. Effect of implementation process on results

8.1 (1.0)

89.7

10.3

41. Effect of implementation process on results

Ess.

44. External events affecting implementation

8.1 (0.9)

95.1

4.9

45. Factors affecting implementation

8.2 (0.9)

93.1

6.9

42. Factors affecting implementation

Ess.

45. Ethical considerations

8.2 (0.9)

95.1

4.9

Moved to #11

      

46. Implementation barriers and facilitators

8.1 (0.9)

97.6

2.4

Moved to #50

      

47. Strengths and limitations

8.2 (0.9)

95.2

4.8

Moved to #50

      

48. Outcome evaluation methods

8.5 (1.2)

90.5

9.5

46. Outcome evaluation methods

8.4 (0.8)

96.6

3.5

43. Outcome evaluation methods

Ess.

49. Unexpected/negative effects

8.3 (0.8)

97.6

2.4

47. Unexpected programme effects

8.2 (0.9)

93.1

6.9

44. Unexpected programme effects

Ess.

50. Differential effects

8.0 (1.1)

88.1

11.9

48. Differential effects

8.2 (1)

89.7

10.3

45. Differential effects

Ess.

     

49. Sustainability

7.8 (0.9)

92.6

7.4

46. Sustainability

Ess.

     

50. Strengths and limitations (lessons learnt)

8.4 (0.9)

96.4

3.6

47. Strengths and limitations (lessons learnt)

Ess.

  1. aEssential (Ess.), Important (Imp.), Not important (Not imp)
  2. bFor round 3, essential items had to be marked as essential for the PRS by at least 80% of participants, while items below this cut-point could be considered as supplementary items
  3. cItems ranked as essential by 70–79% of participants were considered borderline essential