Stakeholder consensus for decision making in eye-gaze control technology for children, adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy service provision: findings from a Delphi study

Table 3 Characteristics of participants

	Round 1 N = 126% (n)	Round 2 N = 62% (n)	Round 3 n = 41% (n)
Respondents
Family/caregivers	9.6 (12)	8.1 (5)	9.8 (4)
Person with cerebral palsy	2.4 (3)	1.6 (1)	0
Classification of functioning ^a
GMFCS E&R
Level V	n = 3	n = 1	n/a ^c
MACS
Level V	n = 2	n = 0	n/a
Level IV	n = 1	n = 1	n/a
CFCS
Level IV	n = 2	n = 1
Level II	n = 1	n = 0	n/a
VSS
Level III	n = 2	n = 1	n/a
Level I	n = 1	n = 0	n/a
	Round 1 Mean Range SD	Round 2 Mean Range SD	Round 3 Mean Range SD
Age
Family/caregivers	48.1	47.4	46.5
	36–62	37–54	36–54
	7.7	6.3	7.6
Person with cerebral palsy	58.0	20 ^b	n/a ^c
	54–61
	3.6
Clinicians/technologists	41.4	42.2	43.2
	22–67	22–67	22–66
	11.4	11.6	11.9
Educators	40.8	38	37
	22–63	22–55	25–49
	16.1	15.8	17.0
Researchers	43.7	43.7	43.7
	29–52	29–52	29–52
	12.7	12.7	12.7
Other involved with eye-gaze control technology	48.9	66	66
	22–75	57–75	57–75
	16.8	12.7	12.7
Experience of using/ communication with eye-gaze control technology (Years)
Family/caregivers	3.5	3.5	2.75
	< 1 to 6	1 to 6	< 1 to 6
	2.1	2.2	2.8
Person with cerebral palsy	2.3	9 ^b	n/a ^c
	0–5 years
	2.5

^a GMFCS E&R Gross Motor Function Classification System Expanded and Revised [37]; MACS Manual Ability Classification System [38]; CFCS Communication Function Classification System [39]; VSS Viking Speech Scale [40]
^b Only one person with cerebral palsy in this round
^c No people with cerebral palsy in this round

ISSN: 1471-2377