Dataset Information

Lessons Learned from a Two-Round Delphi-based Scenario Study.

ABSTRACT: The Delphi technique is a suitable methodology for structuring group communication to answer current and prospective research questions within several rounds. The method is used in many disciplines and characterized by anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and statistical "group response" (Rowe & Wright, 2001). This technical paper presents practical details and lessons learned from a two-round Delphi-based scenario study in which projections (Delphi statements, questions or hypotheses) were developed with findings from expert interviews and an expert workshop. This Delphi study provides answers to future-related questions for which other research methods are inappropriate. This is depicted as a five-step process, making it easy to follow and replicable, for example to help first-time Delphi-method researchers. In doing so, the authors aim to provide the community with valuable technical insights and guidance for studies applying the Delphi technique both to prospective questions and in other research settings.•Conducting a Delphi study can be a slow process with respect to receiving feedback from the panelists. Planning an appropriate period for distributing the questionnaire may produce a higher return rate. A sufficient time buffer should be incorporated into project planning.•Projections that create dissent among the panelists may provide valuable results.•Data analytics, software programs and online social networks can support researchers, save time and resources, and provide further insights in the process of conducting a Delphi study.

SUBMITTER: Schmalz U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7749424 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lessons Learned from a Two-Round Delphi-based Scenario Study.

Schmalz Ulrike U Spinler Stefan S Ringbeck Jürgen J

MethodsX 20201213

The Delphi technique is a suitable methodology for structuring group communication to answer current and prospective research questions within several rounds. The method is used in many disciplines and characterized by anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and statistical "group response" (Rowe & Wright, 2001). This technical paper presents practical details and lessons learned from a two-round Delphi-based scenario study in which projections (Delphi statements, questions or hypotheses) wer ...[more]

PMID: 33365260

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStaffing of health services ought to consider the workload experienced to maximize efficiency. However, this is rarely the case, due to lack of an appropriate approach. The World Health Organization (WHO) developed and has promoted the Workload Indicators of Staffing Need (WISN) methodology globally. Due to its relative simplicity compared to previous methods, the WISN has been used extensively, particularly after its computerization in 2010. Many lessons have been learnt from the introduction and promotion of the methodology across the globe but have, hitherto, not been synthesized for technical and policy consideration. This study gathered, synthesized, and now shares the key adaptations, innovations, and lessons learned. These could facilitate lesson-learning and motivate the WHO's WISN Thematic Working Group to review and further ease its application.MethodsThe study aimed to answer four questions: (1) how easy is it for the users to implement each step of the WISN methodology? (2) What innovations have been used to overcome implementation challenges? (3) What lessons have been learned that could inform future WISN implementation? and (4) what recommendations can be made to improve the WISN methodology? We used a three-round traditional Delphi method to conduct a case study of user-experiences during the adoption of the WISN methodology. We sent three email iterations to 23 purposively selected WISN expert users across 21 countries in five continents. Thematic analysis of each round was done simultaneously with data collection.ResultsParticipants rated seven of the eight technical steps of the WISN as either "very easy" or "easy" to implement. The step considered most difficult was obtaining the Category Allowance Factors (CAF). Key lessons learned were that: the benefits gained from applying the WISN outweigh the challenges faced in understanding the technical steps; benchmarking during WISN implementation saves time; data quality is critical for successful implementation; and starting with small-scale projects sets the ground better for more effective scale-up than attempting massive national application of the methodology the first time round.ConclusionsThe study provides a good reference for easing WISN implementation for new users and for WHO to continue promoting and improving upon it.

Project description:BackgroundHealth economists have shown a growing interest in deliberation and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as possible pathways to transparently integrate value judgments in cost-utility analyses. In line with these developments, this study piloted a consensus process to derive a German value set for the Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D). In a conference setting, a group was tasked to deliberate on scores and weights for the SF-6D from the perspective of a self-determined and independent life.MethodsThe one-day consensus conference was based on a deliberative process in combination with the MCDA method MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique). According to MACBETH, participants were asked to qualitatively rate pairwise comparisons of SF-6D health states. The scoring within each dimension was conducted in parallel group sessions. Final agreement on the scores as well as weights for the SF-6D dimensions were derived in a subsequent plenary assembly. Results were analyzed using the software M-MACBETH and qualitative content analysis.ResultsA total of 34 participants were recruited. While each of the 6 small groups presented a consented score, the plenary assembly reached consensus on all dimensions apart from pain. Concerning dimension weights, some participants favored prioritizing pain and mental health. Others disputed that trade-offs between dimensions and thus assigning weights were not acceptable in a context where this may involve withholding care from someone. As a consequence, no consensus on a value set was reached. Participants identified the group size of the plenary session and the applied weighting procedure as main obstacles to the process.ConclusionsThis pilot study presents a consensus-based approach for valuing health-related quality of life. However, further research is needed on deliberative processes that yield quantifiable results. Future conferences should explore smaller group sizes, longer durations of the deliberative process and alternatives to the additive value function applied in MACBETH.

Project description:IntroductionCancer is often considered a chronic disease, and most people with cancer have a caregiver, often a family member or friend who provides a significant amount of care during the illness trajectory. Caregivers are frequently in need of support, and a range of interventions have been trialled to improve outcomes. Consensus for optimal ways to support caregivers is not known. The aim of this protocol paper is to describe procedures for a modified Delphi study to explore expert consensus about important factors when developing caregiver interventions.Methods and analysisOnline modified Delphi methodology will be used to establish consensus for important caregiver intervention factors incorporating the Patient problem, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome framework. Round 1 will comprise a free-text questionnaire and invite the panel to contribute factors they deem important in the development and evaluation of caregiver interventions. Round 2 is designed to determine preliminary consensus of the importance of factors generated in round 1. The panel will be asked to rate each factor using a 4-point Likert-type scale. The option for panellists to state reasoning for their rating will be provided. Descriptive statistics (median scores and IQR) will be calculated to determine each item's relative importance. Levels of consensus will be assessed based on a predefined consensus rating matrix. In round 3, factors will be recirculated including aggregate group responses (statistics and comment summaries) and panellists' own round 2 scores. Panellists will be invited to reconsider their judgements and resubmit ratings using the same rating system as in round 2. This will result in priority lists based on the panel's total rating scores.Ethics and disseminationEthics for this study has been gained from the Deakin University Human Ethics Advisory Group. It is anticipated that the results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in a variety of forums.

Dataset Information

Lessons Learned from a Two-Round Delphi-based Scenario Study.

Publications

Lessons Learned from a Two-Round Delphi-based Scenario Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets