-
Zeitschrift Fur Evidenz, Fortbildung... Aug 2022Delphi techniques are conducted across different subfields in the health sciences. The reporting practices of studies using Delphi techniques vary, and current reporting... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Delphi techniques are conducted across different subfields in the health sciences. The reporting practices of studies using Delphi techniques vary, and current reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques focus on individual subfields of the health sciences or on different aspects of research and are therefore of limited applicability. The aim of this article was to identify similarities, differences, and possible shortcomings of existing Delphi reporting guidelines and to draft an initial proposal for a comprehensively applicable reporting guideline.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for reporting guidelines on Delphi studies was performed in existing data resources based on databases in the health sciences (Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Epistemonikos) including publications from 2016 to 2021. In June 2021, we conducted an additional search in PubMed and included further studies by contacting experts of the scientific Delphi expert network (DeWiss). Title and abstract screening of articles was performed, followed by a full-text screening of the articles included. We qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated, compared and contrasted the reporting guidelines identified using content analysis and discussed the results among the members of the Delphi expert network.
RESULTS
We retrieved ten health science articles with reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. In analyzing them, we identified nine main categories (Justification, Expert panel, Questionnaire, Survey design, Process regulation, Analyses, Results, Discussion, Methods reflection & Ethics). The current reporting guidelines vary significantly, with only the aspect of consensus appearing in all of them. Frequency distributions show that most of the subcategories are only addressed in individual articles (e.g., meeting of participants, proceeding with the survey method, transfer of the results, validation, prevention of bias) and that epistemological foundations of the Delphi technique are rarely mentioned or reflected on. We drafted an initial proposal for Delphi reporting guidelines for the health science sector.
DISCUSSION
A well-justified position concerning epistemological foundations of Delphi studies is necessary to make the quality of the process assessable and, along with the reporting of the process, to classify and compare study results. This will increase the acceptance of both the method in the health science sector and the results in medical practice. A Delphi reporting guideline must, above all, take into account the diversity of variants, subfield-related objectives and application areas, and their modifications of the Delphi technique in order to be comprehensively applicable in the health sciences.
CONCLUSION
The results of our methodological review do not provide a final reporting guideline. The newly developed proposal is intended to encourage discussion and agreement in further analyses.
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Germany; Humans; Research Design; Research Report
PubMed: 35718726
DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2022.04.025 -
Pflege Aug 2021
Topics: Attention; Delphi Technique; Humans
PubMed: 34292075
DOI: 10.1024/1012-5302/a000812 -
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport Sep 2023
Topics: Humans; Consensus; Delphi Technique
PubMed: 37793713
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2023.09.007 -
European Journal of Cardiovascular... Oct 2021Delphi techniques are used in health care and nursing to systematically bring together explicit and implicit knowledge from experts with a research or practical...
Delphi techniques are used in health care and nursing to systematically bring together explicit and implicit knowledge from experts with a research or practical background, often with the goal of reaching a group consensus. Consensus standards and findings are important for promoting the exchange of information and ideas on an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary basis, and for guaranteeing comparable procedures in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Yet, the development of consensus standards using Delphi techniques is challenging because it is dependent on the willingness of experts to participate and the statistical definition of consensus.
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Humans
PubMed: 34245253
DOI: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab059 -
British Dental Journal Jun 2020
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Informed Consent
PubMed: 32541718
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-1740-2 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Apr 2022
Topics: Delphi Technique; Global Health; Humans; Public Health
PubMed: 35386554
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.22.010422 -
Sante Publique (Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy,... 2024Health professionals’ social responsibility in health resists translation into skills that can be taught and implemented concretely in professional practice.
INTRODUCTION
Health professionals’ social responsibility in health resists translation into skills that can be taught and implemented concretely in professional practice.
PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
This study, conducted by the Réseau International Francophone pour la Responsabilité Sociale en Santé (RIFRESS), aims to develop a consensus on the components of doctors’ social responsibility in health from the perspective of experts in medical education. Its findings are intended to inform the creation of a skills profile. A three-round Delphi consensus method was used, with an open first round and closed second and third rounds. Mesydel software was used to organize the process and to do the qualitative analysis of the first round. SPSS was used for consensus analysis for rounds 2 and 3.
RESULTS
Thirty-four experts responded to the study. During the first round, 62 codes emerged, grouped into 13 themes. From the initial analysis, 40 items were submitted for the Delphi round 2. Of these 40 items, 23 came out consensual after the second round, as did 13 of the 18 resubmitted items after the third. Examples of items that emerged as consensual are eco-responsibility, advocacy, defense of the common good, critical analysis of practice, and collaborative leadership.
CONCLUSIONS
The present study represents a much-needed effort to concretely define the components of doctors’ social responsibility in health. Local context must be taken into account when using these findings. They can help to train tomorrow’s doctors to better meet the priority health needs of society in a profoundly changing world.
Topics: Delphi Technique; Humans; Social Responsibility; Internationality; Consensus; Female; Male
PubMed: 38906818
DOI: No ID Found -
Bulletin of the World Health... Nov 2023
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Delphi Technique; Global Health
PubMed: 37961056
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.011123 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Jan 2023
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Delphi Technique; Global Health
PubMed: 36593783
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.010123 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Dec 2023
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Delphi Technique; Global Health
PubMed: 38046368
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.011223