Delphi studies in social and health sciences - Recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting (DELPHISTAR). Results of a Delphi study

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Marlen Niederberger - , Schwäbisch Gmünd University of Education (First author)
  • Julia Schifano - , Schwäbisch Gmünd University of Education (Author)
  • Stefanie Deckert - , Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare (Author)
  • Julian Hirt - , Eastern Switzerland University of Applied Sciences, University of Basel (Author)
  • Angelika Homberg - , Heidelberg University  (Author)
  • Stefan Köberich - , University Medical Center Freiburg (Author)
  • Rainer Kuhn - , DIALOGIK Non-Profit Institute for Communication and Cooperation Research, University of Stuttgart (Author)
  • Alexander Rommel - , Robert Koch-Institut (Author)
  • Marco Sonnberger - , University of Stuttgart (Last author)
  • DEWISS network - (Author)
  • Northwestern University
  • University of British Columbia
  • Seichiryo Hospital
  • University of Toronto
  • The University of Auckland
  • Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children
  • Government Medical College Srinagar
  • McMaster University
  • Lanzhou University
  • Polytechnic University of Turin
  • Central Queensland University
  • University of Lausanne
  • Kashan University of Medical Sciences and Health Services
  • University of New South Wales
  • University of Hertfordshire
  • University of Oregon
  • The Polycystic Kidney Disease Charity
  • University of Sydney
  • Dalhousie University
  • VieCuri Medisch Centrum
  • University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
  • University of Sheffield
  • University of Ottawa
  • University of Copenhagen
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden
  • Twin Cities Orthopedics
  • Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
  • King's College London (KCL)
  • Friedrich Schiller University Jena
  • PLA General Hospital
  • University of Aberdeen
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (UMC)
  • CIEMAT
  • Monash University
  • Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES)
  • University of Utah
  • Towson University
  • University of Manchester
  • Ghent University
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Abstract

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 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 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 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.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0304651
JournalPloS one
Volume19
Issue number8
Publication statusPublished - 26 Aug 2024
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

PubMed 39186713

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas