Review

Authors: Julia Spranger, Angelika Homberg, Marco Sonnberger...

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

Authors: Arturo Casadevall, Ferric C Fang

In contrast to many other human endeavors, science pays little attention to its history. Fundamental scientific discoveries are often considered to be timeless and independent of how they were made. Science and the history of science are regarded as independent academic disciplines. Although most scientists are aware of great discoveries in their fields and their association with the names of individual scientists, few know the detailed stories behind the discoveries. Indeed, the history of scientific discovery is sometimes recorded only in informal accounts that may be inaccurate or biased for self-serving reasons. Scientific papers are generally written in a formulaic style that bears no relationship to the actual process of discovery. Here we examine why scientists should care more about the history of science. A better understanding of history can illuminate social influences on the scientific process, allow scientists to learn from previous errors, and provide a greater appreciation for the importance of serendipity in scientific discovery. Moreover, history can help to assign credit where it is due and call attention to evolving ethical standards in science. History can make science better.

Topics: Biomedical Research; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Science

PubMed: 26371119
DOI: 10.1128/IAI.00921-15

Authors: Rita Gemayel

In the first instalment of the Words of Advice series, we feature the essentials of good manuscript writing with practical tips on how to plan, organise and write a standout scientific paper.

Topics: Humans; Manuscripts as Topic; Publishing; Research Report; Science; Writing

PubMed: 27870269
DOI: 10.1111/febs.13918

Authors: David J Balding, Gregory S Barsh, Gregory P Copenhaver...

Topics: Humans; Research Design; Science

PubMed: 32667915
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008950

Authors: Milton H Saier, J T Trevors

Topics: Biotechnology; Culture; Ethics, Research; Humanities; Humans; Microbiology; Mythology; Public Health; Science; Societies

PubMed: 28448972
DOI: 10.1159/000467401

Authors: Howy Jacobs

The new German government has boldly promised to “lead Germany to first place in the world in education, science and research.” Howy Jacobs explores this promise and whether it will lure Einstein's grandchildren back across the pond.

Topics: Europe; Germany; Science; United States; Workforce

PubMed: 20351754
DOI: 10.1038/embor.2010.38

Review

Authors: Marino Pérez-Álvarez

The turn of qualitative inquiry suggests a more open, plural conception of psychology than just the science of the mind and behavior as it is most commonly defined. Historical, ontological and epistemological binding of this conception of psychology to the positivist method of natural science may have exhausted its possibilities, and after having contributed to its prestige as a science, has now become an obstacle. It is proposed that psychology be reconceived as a science of subject and comportment in the framework of a contextual hermeneutic, social, human behavioral science. Thus, without rejecting quantitative inquiry, psychology recovers territory left aside like introspection and pre-reflective self-awareness, and reconnects with traditions marginalized from the main stream. From this perspective psychology might also recover its credibility as a human science in view of current skepticism.

Topics: Behavioral Research; Humans; Psychology; Science

PubMed: 29063995
DOI: 10.1007/s12124-017-9408-4

Authors: José-Alain Sahel

Topics: Biomedical Research; Forecasting; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Light; Pandemics; Perception; Science; Truth Disclosure

PubMed: 32452358
DOI: 10.1051/medsci/2020110

Authors: Francisco J Ayala

Topics: Biological Evolution; Christianity; Culture; Curriculum; Dissent and Disputes; Religion and Science; Science

PubMed: 18178613
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0711608105

Authors: Peter W Hunt

Translational research is often conceptualized with an implicit directionality, taking an idea generated in the laboratory (ie, the "bench") and applying it at the point of care (ie, the "bedside"). This role is often played by physician-scientists who work both in the laboratory and in the clinic. Less well appreciated is the valuable role a physician-scientist can play by using compelling observations from clinical research studies to guide basic scientists toward clinically important problems and even novel scientific concepts. The goal of this editorial is to highlight this often overlooked role that clinical-translational physician-scientists can play in translating observations at the bedside to efforts at the bench, highlighting their importance for scientific progress and discussing the type of research training and scientific environments that can help these individuals flourish. The importance of cohort studies and multidisciplinary team science in this context will also be highlighted.

Topics: Humans; Interdisciplinary Research; Physicians; Research; Research Personnel; Science; Teaching; Translational Research, Biomedical

PubMed: 30124982
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiy264