Objective Vulvar health conditions such as lichen sclerosus and vulvodynia are often misdiagnosed or delayed in diagnosis, leading to worsened clinical outcomes. A standardized intake questionnaire for the initial patient visit could improve early detection and management of these complex conditions. This study aimed to develop a consensus-based standardized intake questionnaire for vulvar health clinics using the eDelphi methodology. Materials and Methods An international eDelphi process was initiated. Specialists in vulvar health were recruited to participate in 2 rounds of online surveys to achieve consensus on key questions. The consensus was defined as 70% agreement among panelists for inclusion or exclusion of questions, with feedback incorporated between rounds. Results A total of 80 panelists from various specialties, including dermatology and gynecology, participated. In the first round, 136 items were reviewed, with 64 meeting consensus for inclusion. After the second round, an additional 20 items were added, leading to a final intake questionnaire consisting of 82 items that were condensed and reorganized to 52 questions and 2 validated surveys (the Vulvar Quality of Life Index and Patient Health Questionnaire 2). Conclusions This study successfully identified key questions for a standardized intake questionnaire for vulvar health clinics using the eDelphi methodology. The methodology may also be applicable to other health conditions requiring structured patient intake processes.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Jenny Foster
Southwestern Medical Center
Olivia Negris
PDK International
O C Abraham
Indiana University School of Medicine
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
Yale University
University of Chicago
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Foster et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/68f04918e559138a1a06d529 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/lgt.0000000000000919
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: