The "Delphi Survey"

1985 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Survey

A Study on Vision and Direction of Competence Centered Society Using Delphi Survey

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-218
Author(s):  
Bom-I Kim ◽  
◽  
Wook-Bin Leem ◽  
Jin-Gu Song
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Survey

scholarly journals Expert consensus-based clinical recommendation for an integrative anthroposophic treatment of acute bronchitis in children: A Delphi survey

2021 ◽  
pp. 102736
Author(s):  
Pilar Marie Wopker ◽  
Melanie Schwermer ◽  
Simon Sommer ◽  
Alfred Längler ◽  
Katharina Fetz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Bronchitis ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
Clinical Recommendation

scholarly journals An International Delphi Survey on Exercise Priorities in Chronic Kidney Disease

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Labib ◽  
Clara Bohm ◽  
Jennifer M. MacRae ◽  
Paul N. Bennett ◽  
Kenneth R. Wilund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Kidney Disease ◽  
Kidney Disease ◽  
Delphi Survey

scholarly journals Strategies for involving patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives in health and social services: protocol for a scoping review and Delphi survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Ben Charif ◽  
◽  
Karine V. Plourde ◽  
Sabrina Guay-Bélanger ◽  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Services ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Scaling Up ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
The Public ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Scoping Reviews

Abstract Background The scale-up of evidence-based innovations is required to reduce waste and inequities in health and social services (HSS). However, it often tends to be a top-down process initiated by policy makers, and the values of the intended beneficiaries are forgotten. Involving multiple stakeholders including patients and the public in the scaling-up process is thus essential but highly complex. We propose to identify relevant strategies for meaningfully and equitably involving patients and the public in the science and practice of scaling up in HSS. Methods We will adapt our overall method from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Following this, we will perform a two-prong study design (knowledge synthesis and Delphi study) grounded in an integrated knowledge translation approach. This approach involves extensive participation of a network of stakeholders interested in patient and public involvement (PPI) in scaling up and a multidisciplinary steering committee. We will conduct a systematic scoping review following the methodology recommended in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual. We will use the following eligibility criteria: (1) participants—any stakeholder involved in creating or testing a strategy for PPI; (2) intervention—any PPI strategy proposed for scaling-up initiatives; (3) comparator—no restriction; (4) outcomes: any process or outcome metrics related to PPI; and (5) setting—HSS. We will search electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Web of Science, Sociological Abstract) from inception onwards, hand search relevant websites, screen the reference lists of included records, and consult experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently select and extract eligible studies. We will summarize data quantitatively and qualitatively and report results using the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. We will conduct an online Delphi survey to achieve consensus on the relevant strategies for PPI in scaling-up initiatives in HSS. Participants will include stakeholders from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We anticipate that three rounds will allow an acceptable degree of agreement on research priorities. Discussion Our findings will advance understanding of how to meaningfully and equitably involve patients and the public in scaling-up initiatives for sustainable HSS. Systematic review registration We registered this protocol with the Open Science Framework on August 19, 2020 (https://osf.io/zqpx7/).

scholarly journals Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) management pathways: results of a Delphi survey to contextualise international recommendations for Indonesian primary care settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fitriana Murriya Ekawati ◽  
Sharon Licqurish ◽  
Jane Gunn ◽  
Shaun Brennecke ◽  
Phyllis Lau
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Hypertensive Disorders Of Pregnancy ◽  
Implementation Barriers ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Hypertensive Disorders

Abstract Background Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) are a significant contributor to the high maternal mortality rate in Indonesia. At the moment, limited guidelines are available to assist primary care providers in managing HDP cases. A previous review of 16 international HDP guidelines has identified opportunities for improving HDP management in Indonesian primary care, but it has not determined the suitability of the recommendations in practice. This study aims to achieve consensus among the experts regarding the recommendations suitability and to develop HDP pathways in Indonesian primary care. Methods Maternal health experts, including GPs, midwives, nurses, medical specialists and health policy researchers from Indonesia and overseas were recruited for the study. They participated in a consensus development process that applied a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions in three Delphi survey rounds. At the first and second-round survey, the participants were asked to rate their agreement on whether each of 125 statements about HDP and HDP management is appropriate for use in Indonesian primary care settings. The third-round survey presented the drafts of HDP pathways and sought participants’ agreement and further suggestions. The participants’ agreement scores were calculated with a statement needing a minimum of 70% agreement to be included in the HDP pathways. The participants’ responses and suggestions to the free text questions were analysed thematically. Results A total of 52 participants were included, with 48, 45 and 37 of them completing the first, second and third round of the survey respectively. Consensus was reached for 115 of the 125 statements on HDP definition, screening, management and long-term follow-up. Agreement scores for the statements ranged from 70.8–100.0%, and potential implementation barriers of the pathways were identified. Drafts of HDP management pathways were also agreed upon and received suggestions from the participants. Conclusions Most evidence-based management recommendations achieved consensus and were included in the developed HDP management pathways, which can potentially be implemented in Indonesian settings. Further investigations are needed to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the developed HDP pathways in primary care practice.

scholarly journals Correction to: IMMPACT-recommended outcome measures and tools of assessment in burning mouth syndrome RCTs: an international Delphi survey protocol

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Carey ◽  
Arwa M. Farag ◽  
Cibele Nasri-Heir ◽  
Gary D. Klasser ◽  
Anura Ariyawardana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Burning Mouth Syndrome ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Burning Mouth ◽  
Survey Protocol

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

scholarly journals Developing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform content of the iFraP complex consultation intervention

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurna Bullock ◽  
Fay Crawford-Manning ◽  
Elizabeth Cottrell ◽  
Jane Fleming ◽  
Sarah Leyland ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Fracture Prevention ◽  
Fracture Liaison Service ◽  
Delphi Survey ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Secondary Fracture ◽  
Drug Treatments ◽  
Fracture Liaison

Abstract Summary Fracture Liaison Services are recommended to deliver best practice in secondary fracture prevention. This modified Delphi survey, as part of the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study, provides consensus regarding tasks for clinicians in a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation. Purpose The clinical consultation is of pivotal importance in addressing barriers to treatment adherence. The aim of this study was to agree to the content of the ‘model Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) consultation’ within the iFraP (Improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug Treatments) study. Methods A Delphi survey was co-designed with patients and clinical stakeholders using an evidence synthesis of current guidelines and content from frameworks and theories of shared decision-making, communication and medicine adherence. Patients with osteoporosis and/or fragility fractures, their carers, FLS clinicians and osteoporosis specialists were sent three rounds of the Delphi survey. Participants were presented with potential consultation content and asked to rate their perception of the importance of each statement on a 5-point Likert scale and to suggest new statements (Round 1). Lowest rated statements were removed or amended after Rounds 1 and 2. In Round 3, participants were asked whether each statement was ‘essential’ and percentage agreement calculated; the study team subsequently determined the threshold for essential content. Results Seventy-two, 49 and 52 patients, carers and clinicians responded to Rounds 1, 2 and 3 respectively. One hundred twenty-two statements were considered. By Round 3, consensus was reached, with 81 statements deemed essential within FLS consultations, relating to greeting/introductions; gathering information; considering therapeutic options; eliciting patient perceptions; establishing shared decision-making preferences; sharing information about osteoporosis and treatments; checking understanding/summarising; and signposting next steps. Conclusions This Delphi consensus exercise has summarised for the first time patient/carer and clinician consensus regarding clearly defined tasks for clinicians in a model FLS consultation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document