Department of Research Methods in Health Promotion and Prevention, Institute for Health Sciences, University of Education Schwäbisch Gmünd, Schwäbisch Gmünd, Germany.
Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital and Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 26;19(8):e0304651. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0304651. eCollection 2024.
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.
虽然有不同的提案来制定关于德尔菲研究报告的指南，但这些提案都没有在健康和社会科学领域以及各种德尔菲变体中得到确立。这似乎至关重要，因为实证研究表明，德尔菲研究的实施方式存在多样性，有时甚至在报告中存在错误。本研究旨在弥补这一空白，并制定一份通用的报告指南。
通过三轮在线德尔菲程序，对德尔菲专家进行了调查，以就健康和社会科学领域的德尔菲研究报告指南达成共识。通过发表德尔菲研究的出版物，选择了受访者。初步报告指南包含 65 个项目，分为五个主题，在五个主题下呈现以供评估，该指南是基于对德尔菲研究实践的系统回顾和对现有的德尔菲研究报告指南的系统回顾而制定的。从第二轮德尔菲开始，专家们以平均值、离散度度量、开放式回答摘要以及他们在前一轮的回答的形式收到反馈。报告指南的最终草案包含至少 75%的受访者通过在 7 点李克特量表上分配 6 和 7 分来同意的项目。
共邀请了 1072 名专家参与。共有 91 名专家完成了第一轮德尔菲调查，69 名专家完成了第二轮，56 名专家完成了第三轮。在报告指南的初稿中，有 65 个项目，最终就 5 个主题中的 38 个项目达成了共识：标题和摘要（n = 3）、背景（n = 7）、方法（n = 20）、结果（n = 4）和讨论（n = 4）。针对理论研究和传播的项目要么被拒绝，要么仍然存在分歧。
我们假设这里提出的报告指南（称为“社会与健康科学中的德尔菲研究-跨学科标准化报告建议”（DELPHISTAR））具有很高的接受度和跨学科适用性。使用该报告指南可以显著提高比较和评估德尔菲研究的能力。
