How Delphi studies in the health sciences find consensus: A systematic review

Author:

Spranger Julia1ORCID,Niederberger Marlen1

Affiliation:

1. Pädagogische Hochschule Schwäbisch Gmünd: Padagogische Hochschule Schwabisch Gmund

Abstract

AbstractBackground:Delphi studies are primarily used in the health sciences to find consensus.They inform clinical practice and influences structures, processes and basic conditions in healthcare. The practical research–how Delphi studies are conducted–has seldom been discussed methodologically or documented systematically. The aim of this systematic review is to fill this research gap and derive guidance regarding the quality of Delphi studies.Methods:Forming the basis of this systematic review are publications on consensus Delphi studies in the health sciences between January 1, 2018, and April 21, 2021, in the databases Scopus, MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL and Epistemonikos. Included were publications in German and English containing the words "Delphi" in the title and "health" and "consensus" in the title or abstract. The practical research was analyzed for the qualitative content of the publications according to three deductive main categories, to which an influence on the result of Delphi studies can be imputed (expert panel, survey design, process and feedback design).Results:A total of 287 consensus Delphi studies were included in the review, whereby 43% reported having carried out a modified Delphi. Most of the time, heterogeneous expert groups from research, clinical practice or health economics and health policy were surveyed. In about a quarter of the Delphi studies, affected parties, such as patients, were part of the expert panel. In the Delphi questionnaires it was most common for standardized Likert scales to be combined with open-ended questions. Which method was used to analyze the open-ended responses was not reported in 62% of the Delphi studies. Consensus is largely (81%) defined as percentage agreement.Conclusions:The results show considerable differences in how Delphi studies are carried out, making assessments and comparisons between them difficult. Sometimes an approach points to unintended effects, or biases hint at the individual judgments of the respondents and, thus, at the overall results of Delphi studies. For this reason, we extrapolate suggestions for how a certain comparability and quality assurance can be achieved for Delphi studies.

Publisher

Research Square Platform LLC

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3