Collecting and validating experiential expertise is doable but poses methodological challenges.

OBJECTIVES: To give an overview of important methodological challenges in collecting, validating, and further processing experiential expertise and how to address these challenges. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on our own experiences in studying the concept, operationalization, and contents of experiential expertise, we have formulated methodological issues regarding the inventory and application of experiential expertise. RESULTS: The methodological challenges can be categorized in six developmental research stages, comprising the conceptualization of experiential expertise, methods to harvest experiential expertise, the validation of experiential expertise, evaluation of the effectiveness, how to translate experiential expertise into acceptable guidelines, and how to implement these. The description of methodological challenges and ways to handle those are illustrated using diabetes mellitus as an example. CONCLUSION: Experiential expertise can be defined and operationalized in terms of successful illness-related behaviors and translated into recommendations regarding life domains. Pathways have been identified to bridge the gaps between the world of patients' daily lives and the medical world.

Supporting people with diabetes mellitus in applying for and participating effectively in paid work: validation of successful diabetes-related behaviors by experiential experts and professional care providers.

OBJECTIVE: To validate successful diabetes-related behaviors, proposed by a group of experiential experts, and to support people with diabetes in applying for and participating effectively in work. METHODS: In a survey among 77 experiential experts and 21 professional care providers, the behaviors were critically appraised regarding several key characteristics. RESULTS: Experiential experts (median scores: 91%, 86%, and 86%) and professionals (median scores: 76%, 76%, and 81%) mostly agreed with these behaviors in terms of clarity, content, and relevance, respectively. Feasibility was seen as somewhat problematic, with median scores by experiential experts and professionals of 65% and 52%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both groups confirmed the validity of the proposed work-related behaviors that were expected to support people with diabetes. The challenge is to implement these behaviors in practice, by effective dissemination and incorporation in work-related self-management programs.

Harvesting experiential expertise to support safe driving for people with diabetes mellitus: a qualitative study evaluated by peers in a survey.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia is a frequent phenomenon in people being treated for diabetes mellitus, which can acutely disrupt driving performance. For the benefit of personal and public traffic safety, we decided to identify successful diabetes-related (SDR) behaviors to support safe driving for people with diabetes, from the perspective of experiential experts with diabetes mellitus. Experiential experts are people who can manage their own illness and conditions by developing expertise relevant to maintaining health and countering illness, and who are able to use this expertise to the benefit of peers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to objectify and systematize experiential expertise in terms of SDR behaviors, based on reports by experiential experts, to support safe driving for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The emphasis was on preventing hypoglycemia as a short-term complication during driving. METHODS: We performed a mixed-methods study involving (i) semi-structured in-depth interviews with 33 experiential experts with diabetes mellitus from the Dutch Diabetes Association (DVN; Diabetesvereniging Nederland), in order to identify SDR behaviors regarding safe driving, and (ii) a validation study by means of a survey among a panel of 98 experiential experts (peers) from the DVN, to determine the extent to which they agreed with the communicability, importance, and feasibility of these behaviors for drivers with diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: We identified a comprehensive set of 11 SDR behaviors, differentiated into seven general and four specific behaviors, to support safe driving. The general behaviors concern the following topics: (i) acquiring knowledge and information; (ii) acquiring and using self-measuring of blood glucose (SMBG) equipment; (iii) knowing one's physical response pattern; (iv) obtaining knowledge about the medication used; (v) preventing long-term eye complications; (vi) influencing factors that can affect blood glucose; and (vii) renewal procedure for driving license. The four specific behaviors refer to the following topics: (i) measures to be taken before driving; (ii) responding effectively to hypoglycemia while driving; (iii) informing and instructing passengers; and (iv) preventing hypoglycemia in drivers with type 2 diabetes mellitus not using SMBG equipment. Key factors for safe driving proved to be the ability of drivers to anticipate and respond effectively to hypoglycemia while driving and to inform and instruct fellow passengers. Participants of the validation survey agreed to a considerable degree with the communicability, importance, and feasibility of these behaviors to support safe driving for people with diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSIONS: This study resulted in the identification and description of SDR behaviors to support safe driving. It proved possible to operationalize experiential expertise in terms of such behaviors. The next step is to have these behaviors validated by professional care providers in the field of diabetes, followed by translation into recommendations in self-management programs.

Identifying experiential expertise to support people with diabetes mellitus in applying for and participating effectively in paid work: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying and describing successful diabetes-related (SDR) behaviors from reports by experiential experts to support people with diabetes in applying for and participating effectively in paid work. METHODS: Data were collected by conducting in-depth interviews with experiential experts with diabetes (N = 47). RESULTS: A comprehensive set of SDR behaviors that can help people with diabetes apply for and participate in paid work. The most important factors were reported to be the ability to anticipate problems in job applications, effective self-management activities to prevent and/or respond to hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia at work, informing relevant others in the workplace, and successfully negotiating with employers about adjustments to work conditions. CONCLUSIONS: A set of work-related SDR behaviors was identified. After validation by experiential experts and professionals, these could be translated into recommendations and tested in experiments in self-management programs.