-
International Journal of Clinical... Jun 2016Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or... (Review)
Review
Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how 'consensus' is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of 'experts.' Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Focus Groups; Humans; Pharmacy Research; Research Design
PubMed: 26846316
DOI: 10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x -
PloS One 2011Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice.
METHODOLOGY AND MAIN FINDING
Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978-2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility.
CONCLUSION
The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys.
Topics: Delphi Technique; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Quality Indicators, Health Care; Research Design
PubMed: 21694759
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020476 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Aug 1995Health providers face the problem of trying to make decisions in situations where there is insufficient information and also where there is an overload of (often... (Review)
Review
Health providers face the problem of trying to make decisions in situations where there is insufficient information and also where there is an overload of (often contradictory) information. Statistical methods such as meta-analysis have been developed to summarise and to resolve inconsistencies in study findings--where information is available in an appropriate form. Consensus methods provide another means of synthesising information, but are liable to use a wider range of information than is common in statistical methods, and where published information is inadequate or non-existent these methods provide a means of harnessing the insights of appropriate experts to enable decisions to be made. Two consensus methods commonly adopted in medical, nursing, and health services research--the Delphi process and the nominal group technique (also known as the expert panel)--are described, together with the most appropriate situations for using them; an outline of the process involved in undertaking a study using each method is supplemented by illustrations of the authors' work. Key methodological issues in using the methods are discussed, along with the distinct contribution of consensus methods as aids to decision making, both in clinical practice and in health service development.
Topics: Consensus Development Conferences as Topic; Decision Making; Delphi Technique; Feedback; Health Services Research
PubMed: 7640549
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376 -
PloS One 2016Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet there is little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language...
Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet there is little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments in children. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicine and the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them. Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possible to achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying children who might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representing ten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatrics and child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46 statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing on this topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a seven-point scale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the first two authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus. The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation (round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percent for 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their response with written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resulting consensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and a concluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.
Topics: Australia; Canada; Delphi Technique; Humans; Interdisciplinary Studies; Ireland; Language Disorders; New Zealand; United Kingdom
PubMed: 27392128
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158753 -
Caries Research 2017
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Dental Caries; Dentistry; Humans; Publications
PubMed: 29040975
DOI: 10.1159/000480305 -
Histopathology Aug 2022The Delphi method is a well-established research tool, used for consensus building across a number of fields. Despite its widespread use, and popularity in many medical... (Review)
Review
The Delphi method is a well-established research tool, used for consensus building across a number of fields. Despite its widespread use, and popularity in many medical specialities, there is a paucity of literature on the use of the Delphi method in Histopathology. This literature review seeks to critique the Delphi methodology and explore its potential applications to histopathology-based clinical and research questions. We review those published studies that have utilized the Delphi methodology in Histopathology settings and specifically outline the advantages and limitations of this technique, highlighting situations where its application can be most effective.
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Humans; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 35322456
DOI: 10.1111/his.14650 -
Seminars in Reproductive Medicine Jul 2022Preconception health affects fertility, pregnancy, and future health outcomes but public awareness of this is low. Our aims were to rank priorities for preconception... (Review)
Review
Preconception health affects fertility, pregnancy, and future health outcomes but public awareness of this is low. Our aims were to rank priorities for preconception care (PCC), develop strategies to address these priorities, and establish values to guide future work in preconception healthcare in Australia. A Delphi technique involved two rounds of online voting and mid-round workshops. Inputs were a scoping review of PCC guidelines, a priority setting framework and existing networks that focus on health. During July and August, 2021, 23 multidisciplinary experts in PCC or social care, including a consumer advocate, completed the Delphi technique. Ten priority areas were identified, with health behaviors, medical history, weight, and reproductive health ranked most highly. Six strategies were identified. Underpinning values encompassed engagement with stakeholders, a life course view of preconception health, an integrated multi-sectorial approach and a need for large scale collaboration to implement interventions that deliver impact across health care, social care, policy and population health. Priority populations were considered within the social determinants of health. Health behaviors, medical history, weight, and reproductive health were ranked highly as PCC priorities. Key strategies to address priorities should be implemented with consideration of values that improve the preconception health of all Australians.
Topics: Australia; Delivery of Health Care; Delphi Technique; Female; Humans; Preconception Care; Pregnancy; Reproductive Health
PubMed: 35760312
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749683 -
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 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2020In health sciences, the Delphi technique is primarily used by researchers when the available knowledge is incomplete or subject to uncertainty and other methods that...
In health sciences, the Delphi technique is primarily used by researchers when the available knowledge is incomplete or subject to uncertainty and other methods that provide higher levels of evidence cannot be used. The aim is to collect expert-based judgments and often to use them to identify consensus. In this map, we provide an overview of the fields of application for Delphi techniques in health sciences in this map and discuss the processes used and the quality of the findings. We use systematic reviews of Delphi techniques for the map, summarize their findings and examine them from a methodological perspective. Twelve systematic reviews of Delphi techniques from different sectors of the health sciences were identified and systematically analyzed. The 12 systematic reviews show, that Delphi studies are typically carried out in two to three rounds with a deliberately selected panel of experts. A large number of modifications to the Delphi technique have now been developed. Significant weaknesses exist in the quality of the reporting. Based on the results, there is a need for clarification with regard to the methodological approaches of Delphi techniques, also with respect to any modification. Criteria for evaluating the quality of their execution and reporting also appear to be necessary. However, it should be noted that we cannot make any statements about the quality of execution of the Delphi studies but rather our results are exclusively based on the reported findings of the systematic reviews.
Topics: Consensus; Delphi Technique; Medicine
PubMed: 33072683
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00457 -
Bulletin of the World Health... Dec 2023
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Delphi Technique; Global Health
PubMed: 38046368
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.23.011223