德尔菲法和其他共识小组方法在医学教育研究中的应用：综述。

The Use of the Delphi and Other Consensus Group Methods in Medical Education Research: A Review.

机构信息

S. Humphrey-Murto is associate professor, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. L. Varpio is associate professor, Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. T.J. Wood is associate professor, Department of Innovation in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. C. Gonsalves is assistant professor, clinician educator, and clinical hematologist, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. L.-A. Ufholz is a medical librarian, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. K. Mascioli is psychiatrist, Department of Psychiatry, and education fellow, Department of Innovation in Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. C. Wang is an internal medicine resident, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. T. Foth is assistant professor, School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

Acad Med. 2017 Oct;92(10):1491-1498. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001812.

DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001812

PMID:28678098

Abstract

PURPOSE

Consensus group methods, such as the Delphi method and nominal group technique (NGT), are used to synthesize expert opinions when evidence is lacking. Despite their extensive use, these methods are inconsistently applied. Their use in medical education research has not been well studied. The authors set out to describe the use of consensus methods in medical education research and to assess the reporting quality of these methods and results.

METHOD

Using scoping review methods, the authors searched the Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, PubMed, Scopus, and ERIC databases for 2009-2016. Full-text articles that focused on medical education and the keywords Delphi, RAND, NGT, or other consensus group methods were included. A standardized extraction form was used to collect article demographic data and features reflecting methodological rigor.

RESULTS

Of the articles reviewed, 257 met the inclusion criteria. The Modified Delphi (105/257; 40.8%), Delphi (91/257; 35.4%), and NGT (23/257; 8.9%) methods were most often used. The most common study purpose was curriculum development or reform (68/257; 26.5%), assessment tool development (55/257; 21.4%), and defining competencies (43/257; 16.7%). The reporting quality varied, with 70.0% (180/257) of articles reporting a literature review, 27.2% (70/257) reporting what background information was provided to participants, 66.1% (170/257) describing the number of participants, 40.1% (103/257) reporting if private decisions were collected, 37.7% (97/257) reporting if formal feedback of group ratings was shared, and 43.2% (111/257) defining consensus a priori.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus methods are poorly standardized and inconsistently used in medical education research. Improved criteria for reporting are needed.

摘要

目的

共识小组方法，如德尔菲法和名义小组技术（NGT），用于在缺乏证据时综合专家意见。尽管它们被广泛使用，但这些方法的应用并不一致。它们在医学教育研究中的应用尚未得到很好的研究。作者旨在描述共识方法在医学教育研究中的应用，并评估这些方法和结果的报告质量。

方法

使用范围综述方法，作者搜索了 Medline、Embase、PsycInfo、PubMed、Scopus 和 ERIC 数据库，以获取 2009-2016 年的文献。全文文章侧重于医学教育和关键字 Delphi、RAND、NGT 或其他共识小组方法。使用标准化的提取表格收集文章的人口统计学数据和反映方法严谨性的特征。

结果

在审查的文章中，有 257 篇符合纳入标准。最常使用的方法是改良 Delphi（105/257；40.8%）、Delphi（91/257；35.4%）和 NGT（23/257；8.9%）。最常见的研究目的是课程开发或改革（68/257；26.5%）、评估工具开发（55/257；21.4%）和定义能力（43/257；16.7%）。报告质量差异较大，70.0%（180/257）的文章报告了文献综述，27.2%（70/257）报告了向参与者提供的背景信息，66.1%（170/257）描述了参与者的数量，40.1%（103/257）报告了是否收集了私人决定，37.7%（97/257）报告了是否共享了小组评分的正式反馈，43.2%（111/257）事先定义了共识。