Background: Mental-health instruments in Korean medicine (KM) exist for specific constructs such as Hwa-Byung, but a multidomain patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) specifically addressing broader mental health in geriatrics has not been established. This study synthesized expert opinion to inform a preliminary KM-informed geriatric mental-health PROM.Methods: A web-based Delphi survey, designed by 4 experienced KM clinicians, was conducted in 3 rounds. The questionnaire covered conceptualization, construction, symptom concepts, and sources of content. Statements/items were classified according to the distribution of ratings (1-3, 4-6, and 7-9 bands). There were 43 statements/items rated in Round 1 and Round 3 was prespecified as the final round. Eligible participants (board-certified KM neuropsychiatry specialists or professors of KM neuropsychiatry at KM universities in Korea) were invited (N = 56). Patients and caregivers did not participate.Results: Eleven experts completed all 3 rounds. Agreement consensus was reached on the need for a KM-informed geriatric mental-health PROM, Likert-type responses, a 1-month recall period, and several symptom concepts and content sources. After the Delphi rounds, a 36-statement/item draft was organized into depression (9 items), anxiety (10 items), anger (8 items), and helplessness (9 items). The domains were not expert panel-rated, and were only partly Delphi-endorsed due to literature-derived and expert-developed content.Conclusion: The Delphi process informed selected concepts and development choices but does not validate the specific 36-item/4-domain draft. The resulting instrument is an author-curated, partly Delphi-endorsed preliminary KM-informed geriatric mental-health PROM draft. Patient-facing content evaluation, management of somatic confounding, and confirmatory psychometric testing are required before clinical or research use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: