Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Jan;129:31-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.034. Epub 2020 Sep 28.
There are two different approaches to involve participants in consecutive rounds of a Delphi survey: (1) invitation to every round independent of response to the previous round ("all-rounds") and (2) invitation only when responded to the previous round ("respondents-only"). This study aimed to investigate the effect of invitation approach on the response rate and final outcome of a Delphi survey.
Both experts (N = 188) and patients (N = 188) took part in a Delphi survey to update the core outcome set (COS) for axial spondyloarthritis. A study with 1:1 allocation to two experimental groups (ie, "all-rounds" [N = 187] and "respondents-only" [N = 189]) was built-in.
The overall response rate was lower in the "respondents-only group" (46%) compared to the "all-rounds group" (61%). All domains that were selected for inclusion in the COS by the "respondents-only group" were also selected by the "all-rounds group." Additionally, the four most important domains were identical between groups after the final round, with only minor differences in the other domains.
Inviting panel members who missed a round to a subsequent round will lead to a better representation of opinions of the originally invited panel and reduces the chance of false consensus, while it does not influence the final outcome of the Delphi.
有两种不同的方法可以让参与者参与连续几轮的德尔菲调查：（1）每轮独立邀请，不考虑对上一轮的回应（“全面邀请”）；（2）仅在上一轮回应时邀请（“仅回应者邀请”）。本研究旨在调查邀请方式对德尔菲调查的回复率和最终结果的影响。
专家（N=188）和患者（N=188）都参加了一项更新轴性脊柱关节炎核心结局集（COS）的德尔菲调查。建立了一项 1:1 分配到两个实验组（即“全面邀请”[N=187]和“仅回应者邀请”[N=189]）的研究。
“仅回应者组”（46%）的总体回复率低于“全面邀请组”（61%）。“仅回应者组”选择纳入 COS 的所有领域也被“全面邀请组”选择。此外，在最后一轮后，两组之间的四个最重要领域是相同的，其他领域只有细微差异。
邀请错过一轮的小组成员参加后续轮次的会议，将更好地代表最初邀请的小组成员的意见，并减少虚假共识的机会，同时不会影响德尔菲的最终结果。
