Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs’ information requirements

Abstract

This article describes some dilemmas and problems encountered in a Delphi study of general practitioners' (GPs) information requirements. The research involved a three-round Delphi administered to an expert panel of 50 GPs in one Welsh health authority area. The Delphi is generally perceived as a qualitative METHOD: However, we argue that the requirements of the technique make it difficult to sustain the kind of inductive analysis - faithfully reflecting respondents' perspectives - that is axiomatic to many of the theoretical approaches that underpin qualitative inquiry. We describe how our attempts to incorporate respondents' views in near-verbatim form in the first round were undermined by the need to classify and reduce statements for later rounds, and to impose judgments about what should count as consensus. The iterative 'consensus-building' process, that is so central to the Delphi, was difficult to take forward without active intervention by the research team, but this involved a re-ordering and reduction of the data, which moved the statements included in later rounds further and further from the verbatim responses on which they were based. Whilst the findings of the study were useful on one level, the final consensus statements took a general, virtually context-free form, which contained few references to background preoccupations (largely concerned with the recent NHS reforms) that were exercising GPs at this time. The method also coped badly with the polarized opinions that existed regarding the development of information systems for commissioning. We conclude that the Delphi is best used for large-scale research in areas where opinions are well established, where the problems and choices confronting the study group are well known, and where a major programme of organizational reform is not already underway.

Simulation performance checklist generation using the Delphi technique

“…This number has been suggested as an appropriate percentage when developing health measurement scales 12 and for Delphi responses. 13 We required only three iterations following the initial template development to achieve 'consensus' which is consistent with other studies in the literature. 13,14 The fact that only three iterations were required also supports the "stability" of the responses which some have suggested to be a reliable indicator of consensus.…”

“…13 We required only three iterations following the initial template development to achieve 'consensus' which is consistent with other studies in the literature. 13,14 The fact that only three iterations were required also supports the "stability" of the responses which some have suggested to be a reliable indicator of consensus. 9 When considering the importance of high-stakes performance based examinations, it is critical that performance tools have adequate validity and reliability.…”

Intervenções de enfermagem NIC de âmbito psicoterapêutico: Conversão em linguagem classificada CIPE® versão 2

“…O resultado foi a constituição de um grupo de 21 peritos selecionados com recurso a uma técnica de amostragem não probabilística, por seleção racional. Apesar de não existir consenso acerca da dimensão ideal da amostra para estudos Delphi (Goodman, 1987;McKenna, 1994;Green, Jones, & Hughes, 1999) a heterogeneidade da mesma tende a ser considerada relevante (Moore, 1987), algo que se procurou alcançar através da mescla de peritos a exercer funções na docência e na prática clínica. Optou-se por recorrer à sobreamostragem como forma de compensar a taxa esperada de "não respostas".…”

10.4.2 Convergence of Expert Opinion via the Wideband Delphi Method: An Application in Cost Estimation Models

“…Loughlin and Moore (1979) suggest that consensus should be equated with 51% agreement amongst respondents. By contrast, Green, et al (1999) employed an 80% consensus level. Establishing the standard is crucial as the level chosen determines what items are discarded or retained as the rounds unfold.…”