Nasa P, Jain R, Juneja D. Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World J Methodol 2021; 11(4): 116-129 [PMID: 34322364 DOI: 10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Prashant Nasa, MD, Chief Doctor, Department of Critical Care Medicine, NMC Specialty Hospital, Al Nahda 2, Dubai 00000, United Arab Emirates. dr.prashantnasa@hotmail.com
Research Domain of This Article
Methodology
Article-Type of This Article
Opinion Review
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Methodol. Jul 20, 2021; 11(4): 116-129 Published online Jul 20, 2021. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v11.i4.116
Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness
Prashant Nasa, Ravi Jain, Deven Juneja
Prashant Nasa, Department of Critical Care Medicine, NMC Specialty Hospital, Dubai 00000, United Arab Emirates
Ravi Jain, Critical Care Medicine, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur 302001, Rajasthan, India
Deven Juneja, Institute of Critical Care Medicine, Max Super Speciality Hospital, New Delhi 110017, India
Author contributions: Nasa P, Jain R, and Juneja D contributed equally to this work; Nasa P and Jain R designed the idea of the study; Nasa P, Jain R, and Juneja D performed the systematic search of the literature; Nasa P contributed the figures; Jain R and Nasa P analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript; all authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: Prashant Nasa declared to be on the advisory board of Edwards life sciences. Other authors do not declare any conflict of interest.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Prashant Nasa, MD, Chief Doctor, Department of Critical Care Medicine, NMC Specialty Hospital, Al Nahda 2, Dubai 00000, United Arab Emirates. dr.prashantnasa@hotmail.com
Received: January 12, 2021 Peer-review started: January 12, 2021 First decision: February 14, 2021 Revised: February 26, 2021 Accepted: May 19, 2021 Article in press: May 19, 2021 Published online: July 20, 2021 Processing time: 187 Days and 18.9 Hours
Abstract
The Delphi technique is a systematic process of forecasting using the collective opinion of panel members. The structured method of developing consensus among panel members using Delphi methodology has gained acceptance in diverse fields of medicine. The Delphi methods assumed a pivotal role in the last few decades to develop best practice guidance using collective intelligence where research is limited, ethically/logistically difficult or evidence is conflicting. However, the attempts to assess the quality standard of Delphi studies have reported significant variance, and details of the process followed are usually unclear. We recommend systematic quality tools for evaluation of Delphi methodology; identification of problem area of research, selection of panel, anonymity of panelists, controlled feedback, iterative Delphi rounds, consensus criteria, analysis of consensus, closing criteria, and stability of the results. Based on these nine qualitative evaluation points, we assessed the quality of Delphi studies in the medical field related to coronavirus disease 2019. There was inconsistency in reporting vital elements of Delphi methods such as identification of panel members, defining consensus, closing criteria for rounds, and presenting the results. We propose our evaluation points for researchers, medical journal editorial boards, and reviewers to evaluate the quality of the Delphi methods in healthcare research.
Core Tip: There are no standard quality parameters to evaluate Delphi methods in healthcare research. Delphi methods’ vital elements include anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and statistical stability of consensus. Published studies have used modified versions of Delphi, and details on methods like expert panel selection, defining consensus, or closing criteria for Delphi rounds are not explicit. We suggest quality assessment tools for readers and researchers for a systematic assessment of Delphi studies.
