-
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 -
Autism : the International Journal of... Jul 2022The diagnostic criteria for autism are relatively vague and can lead to both under- and over-diagnosis if applied as a checklist. The highest level of agreement that a...
The diagnostic criteria for autism are relatively vague and can lead to both under- and over-diagnosis if applied as a checklist. The highest level of agreement that a person is autistic occurs when experienced clinicians are able to make use of their clinical judgment. However, it is not always clear what this judgment consists of. Given that particular issues exist when assessing for autism in adult women, we wanted to explore how expert clinicians address difficult diagnostic situations in this population. We interviewed 20 experienced psychologists and psychiatrists from seven countries and discussed how they conducted autism assessments in adult women. We then came up with a list of 35 statements that described participant views. Our participants completed an online survey where they rated their agreement with these statements and provided feedback on how the statements were worded and organized. We obtained a final list of 37 suggested clinical guidelines. Participants agreed that diagnostic tools and questionnaires had to be coupled with judgment and expertise. Participants felt that trauma and Borderline Personality Disorder could be difficult to differentiate from autism, and agreed on some ways to address this issue. Participants agreed that self-identification to the autism spectrum was frequent, and that it was important to provide alternative support when they did not ultimately diagnose autism.
Topics: Adult; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Autistic Disorder; Delphi Technique; Diagnosis, Differential; Female; Humans; Intelligence
PubMed: 34514874
DOI: 10.1177/13623613211042719 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Apr 2022
Topics: Delphi Technique; Global Health; Humans; Public Health
PubMed: 35386554
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.22.010422 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2023The ideal hospitalist workload and optimal way to measure it are not well understood.
IMPORTANCE
The ideal hospitalist workload and optimal way to measure it are not well understood.
OBJECTIVE
To obtain expert consensus on the salient measures of hospitalist workload.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This qualitative study used a 3-round Delphi technique between April 5 and July 13, 2022, involving national experts within and external to the field. Experts included hospitalist clinicians, leaders, and administrators, as well as researchers with expertise in human factors engineering and cognitive load theory.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Three rounds of surveys were conducted, during which participants provided input on the salient measures of hospitalist workload across various domains. In the first round, free-text data collected from the surveys were analyzed using a directed qualitative content approach. In the second and third rounds, participants rated each measure's relevance on a Likert scale, and consensus was evaluated using the IQR. Percentage agreement was also calculated.
RESULTS
Seventeen individuals from 14 organizations, encompassing clinicians, leaders, administrators, and researchers, participated in 3 rounds of surveys. In round 1, participants provided 135 unique qualitative comments across 10 domains, with 192 unique measures identified. Of the 192 measures presented in the second round, 6 (3%) were considered highly relevant, and 25 (13%) were considered moderately relevant. In round 3, 161 measures not meeting consensus were evaluated, with 25 (16%) considered highly relevant and 95 (59%) considered moderately relevant. Examples of measures considered highly relevant included a patient complexity score and outcome measures such as savings from hospital days avoided and clinician turnover.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this qualitative study measuring hospitalist workload, multiple measures, including those quantifying work demands and the association of those demands with outcomes, were considered relevant for measuring and understanding workloads. The findings suggest that relying on traditional measures, such as productivity-related measures and financial measures, may offer an incomplete understanding of workloads and their association with key outcomes. By embracing a broader range of measures, organizations may be able to better capture the complexity and nuances of hospitalist work demands and their outcomes on clinicians, patients, and organizations.
Topics: Humans; Workload; Hospitalists; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Consensus; Delphi Technique
PubMed: 37561462
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.28165 -
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... Nov 2023
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Delphi Technique; Global Health
PubMed: 37961056
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.011123 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Dec 2023
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Delphi Technique; Global Health
PubMed: 38046368
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.011223 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Oct 2023
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Delphi Technique; Global Health
PubMed: 37780645
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.011023 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Jul 2023
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Delphi Technique; Global Health
PubMed: 37397172
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.010723 -
American Journal of Respiratory and... Apr 2021
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Asthma; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Humans
PubMed: 33211979
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202010-4001ED