Delphi studies in social and health sciences-Recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting (DELPHISTAR). Results of a Delphi study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2024
2024
Historique:
received:
18
10
2023
accepted:
16
05
2024
medline:
27
8
2024
pubmed:
26
8
2024
entrez:
26
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
While different proposals exist for a guideline on reporting Delphi studies, none of them has yet established itself in the health and social sciences and across the range of Delphi variants. This seems critical because empirical studies demonstrate a diversity of modifications in the conduction of Delphi studies and sometimes even errors in the reporting. The aim of the present study is to close this gap and formulate a general reporting guideline. In an international Delphi procedure, Delphi experts were surveyed online in three rounds to find consensus on a reporting guideline for Delphi studies in the health and social sciences. The respondents were selected via publications of Delphi studies. The preliminary reporting guideline, containing 65 items on five topics and presented for evaluation, had been developed based on a systematic review of the practice of Delphi studies and a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. Starting in the second Delphi round, the experts received feedback in the form of mean values, measures of dispersion, a summary of the open-ended responses and their own response in the previous round. The final draft of the reporting guideline contains the items on which at least 75% of the respondents agreed by assigning scale points 6 and 7 on a 7-point Likert scale. 1,072 experts were invited to participate. A total of 91 experts completed the first Delphi round, 69 experts the second round, and 56 experts the third round. Of the 65 items in the first draft of the reporting guideline, consensus was ultimately reached for 38 items addressing the five topics: Title and Abstract (n = 3), Context (n = 7), Method (n = 20), Results (n = 4) and Discussion (n = 4). Items focusing on theoretical research and on dissemination were either rejected or remained subjects of dissent. We assume a high level of acceptance and interdisciplinary suitability regarding the reporting guideline presented here and referred to as the "Delphi studies in social and health sciences-recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting" (DELPHISTAR). Use of this reporting guideline can substantially improve the ability to compare and evaluate Delphi studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
While different proposals exist for a guideline on reporting Delphi studies, none of them has yet established itself in the health and social sciences and across the range of Delphi variants. This seems critical because empirical studies demonstrate a diversity of modifications in the conduction of Delphi studies and sometimes even errors in the reporting. The aim of the present study is to close this gap and formulate a general reporting guideline.
METHOD
METHODS
In an international Delphi procedure, Delphi experts were surveyed online in three rounds to find consensus on a reporting guideline for Delphi studies in the health and social sciences. The respondents were selected via publications of Delphi studies. The preliminary reporting guideline, containing 65 items on five topics and presented for evaluation, had been developed based on a systematic review of the practice of Delphi studies and a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. Starting in the second Delphi round, the experts received feedback in the form of mean values, measures of dispersion, a summary of the open-ended responses and their own response in the previous round. The final draft of the reporting guideline contains the items on which at least 75% of the respondents agreed by assigning scale points 6 and 7 on a 7-point Likert scale.
RESULTS
RESULTS
1,072 experts were invited to participate. A total of 91 experts completed the first Delphi round, 69 experts the second round, and 56 experts the third round. Of the 65 items in the first draft of the reporting guideline, consensus was ultimately reached for 38 items addressing the five topics: Title and Abstract (n = 3), Context (n = 7), Method (n = 20), Results (n = 4) and Discussion (n = 4). Items focusing on theoretical research and on dissemination were either rejected or remained subjects of dissent.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
We assume a high level of acceptance and interdisciplinary suitability regarding the reporting guideline presented here and referred to as the "Delphi studies in social and health sciences-recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting" (DELPHISTAR). Use of this reporting guideline can substantially improve the ability to compare and evaluate Delphi studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39186713
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304651
pii: PONE-D-23-30916
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0304651Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2024 Niederberger et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2017 Mar;73(3):665-678
pubmed: 27683233
Med J Aust. 2006 Sep 4;185(5):263-7
pubmed: 16948622
J Adv Nurs. 2017 Dec;73(12):3168-3177
pubmed: 28714173
J Health Organ Manag. 2003;17(1):37-52
pubmed: 12800279
Health Promot Perspect. 2019 Aug 06;9(3):241-247
pubmed: 31508345
Occup Med (Lond). 2015 Oct;65(7):590-7
pubmed: 26290408
MethodsX. 2023 Mar 24;10:102156
pubmed: 37025648
Ann Rheum Dis. 2013 Jul;72(7):1125-35
pubmed: 23595142
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
MethodsX. 2021 May 28;8:101401
pubmed: 34430297
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jul 10;19(1):68
pubmed: 29986689
J Adv Nurs. 2000 Oct;32(4):1008-15
pubmed: 11095242
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160
pubmed: 33781993
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2022 Jun 20;30(1):41
pubmed: 35725580
BMJ Open. 2021 Sep 2;11(9):e051066
pubmed: 34475183
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2022 Aug;172:1-11
pubmed: 35718726
Palliat Med. 2017 Sep;31(8):684-706
pubmed: 28190381
Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 29;1:60
pubmed: 23194585
Telemed J E Health. 2014 Sep;20(9):835-49
pubmed: 24978152
Acad Med. 2017 Oct;92(10):1491-1498
pubmed: 28678098
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2022 Nov;174:11-19
pubmed: 36137932
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;102:99-106
pubmed: 29966731
Trials. 2023 Aug 18;24(1):543
pubmed: 37596699
Front Public Health. 2020 Feb 13;8:1
pubmed: 32117846
Histopathology. 2022 Aug;81(2):159-167
pubmed: 35322456
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 9;18(11):e0293736
pubmed: 37943803
Trials. 2016 Jan 04;17:1
pubmed: 26725476
HPB (Oxford). 2019 Nov;21(11):1446-1452
pubmed: 30956165
Int J Nurs Stud. 2016 Aug;60:112-20
pubmed: 27297373
PLoS Med. 2010 Feb 16;7(2):e1000217
pubmed: 20169112
PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20476
pubmed: 21694759
PLoS One. 2023 Aug 15;18(8):e0289009
pubmed: 37582076
Radiography (Lond). 2017 Sep;23 Suppl 1:S53-S57
pubmed: 28780953
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Dec;13(6):428-34
pubmed: 15576704
Medicine (Baltimore). 2023 Feb 17;102(7):e32829
pubmed: 36800594
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2022 Jun 7;7(1):3
pubmed: 35672782
BMC Psychiatry. 2009 Aug 03;9:47
pubmed: 19646284
PLoS Med. 2024 Jan 23;21(1):e1004326
pubmed: 38261576
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Apr;54(8):444-451
pubmed: 31685525
Nurs Open. 2023 Apr;10(4):2192-2202
pubmed: 36564937
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9
pubmed: 24581294
J Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 29;222(Suppl 8):S726-S731
pubmed: 33119096
World J Methodol. 2021 Jul 20;11(4):116-129
pubmed: 34322364