Delphi survey to explore core curriculum for training the next generation of hepatologists

Document Type

Article

Department

Medicine

Abstract

Background & aims: Hepatology is experiencing major shifts in disease etiologies and is raising demand for multidisciplinary care. However, a globally harmonized framework defining core training content remains lacking. We aimed to develop a globally informed expert consensus framework for the content of core hepatology training, to provide a structured foundation for curriculum development.
Methods: A two-round modified Delphi using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was conducted. A comprehensive list of curriculum items was developed from international training standards, refined by a steering committee, and rated by a stratified international panel. Consensus was determined using medians and a disagreement index (DI), which classified curriculum items as essential, desirable, or optional.
Results: A total of 456 experts completed Round 1, of whom 78.7% also completed Round 2. Consensus was strongest for foundational knowledge and core diagnostic skills, including interpretation of abnormal liver function and liver screening test results, and non-invasive fibrosis assessment (both DI = 0). Management of major liver diseases was consistently prioritized as essential. Procedures with the highest endorsement for independent performance were paracentesis, transient elastography, variceal screening, and endoscopic variceal therapy. Consensus was limited for conventional ultrasonography and advanced interventions, reflecting regional variability in resources and scope of practice. Most experts (79.1%) supported formal training in research methodology, and the median recommended fellowship length was 24 months. Subgroup differences were mainly observed in selected resource-dependent or highly specialized items.
Conclusions: This global consensus offers a priority-stratified outline of core hepatology training content providing a practical foundation for curriculum development and staged implementation across diverse health systems.
Impact and implications: Our study provides a consensus-based, priority-stratified framework for core hepatology training content that may inform curriculum development and local adaptation, given the growing global burden of liver disease and the heterogeneity of training standards. This framework may support curriculum mapping and local adaptation for trainees, program directors, professional societies, and policymakers, including in settings where structured hepatology training pathways are still evolving. In practical terms, these findings may assist educators and institutions in reviewing and refining national curricula and training structures. However, specific implementation decisions, including accreditation requirements and procedural training standards, will need to be adapted to local regulatory and resource contexts. Recognizing that these recommendations are based on expert consensus rather than outcome data and may be variably implementable in resource-limited settings, the next steps are pilot implementation in diverse settings, evaluation of trainee and patient outcomes, and iterative revision, supported by coordinated efforts from societies, governments, and training institutions.

Publication (Name of Journal)

JHEP Rep

DOI

10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101942

Link to Full Text

Share

COinS