Holly Powell Kennedy1. 1. University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, USA. holly.kennedy@nursing.ucsf.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Delphi method provides an opportunity for experts (panelists) to communicate their opinions and knowledge anonymously about a complex problem, to see how their evaluation of the issue aligns with others, and to change their opinions, if desired, after reconsideration of the findings of the group's work. Delphi studies have the potential to provide valuable information, yet few researchers have taken further steps to support or refine their findings. Without this step there is a potential threat to the applicability, or external validity, of the results. AIMS: The purpose of this article is to present an argument for further inquiry to enhance and support Delphi findings, and specific approaches to this will be considered. METHODS: Methods to enhance, expand, or refine Delphi study findings are described. Mixed method design within a Delphi study on midwifery practice is described, and a follow-up narrative study to examine the findings is presented. FINDINGS: Selected results from the follow up narrative study are presented to convey how the narrative data clarified the Delphi findings. Together, the studies provide a more robust depiction of midwifery practice, process, and outcomes. Although there were similarities to the dimensions identified previously, there was a more dynamic focus and explanation of the interaction between the midwife, the woman who had received midwifery care, and the health care system. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Lack of diversity in the sample and the midwives' familiarity with the author's past research represent a potential threat to the findings. Prolonged interviews and multiple narratives were gathered in an effort to control for this. CONCLUSION: Delphi studies are research exercises conducted by a panel of experts. Designing studies to further enhance, clarify, or refine their findings from the context of practice holds promise for their ability to influence clinical care.
BACKGROUND: The Delphi method provides an opportunity for experts (panelists) to communicate their opinions and knowledge anonymously about a complex problem, to see how their evaluation of the issue aligns with others, and to change their opinions, if desired, after reconsideration of the findings of the group's work. Delphi studies have the potential to provide valuable information, yet few researchers have taken further steps to support or refine their findings. Without this step there is a potential threat to the applicability, or external validity, of the results. AIMS: The purpose of this article is to present an argument for further inquiry to enhance and support Delphi findings, and specific approaches to this will be considered. METHODS: Methods to enhance, expand, or refine Delphi study findings are described. Mixed method design within a Delphi study on midwifery practice is described, and a follow-up narrative study to examine the findings is presented. FINDINGS: Selected results from the follow up narrative study are presented to convey how the narrative data clarified the Delphi findings. Together, the studies provide a more robust depiction of midwifery practice, process, and outcomes. Although there were similarities to the dimensions identified previously, there was a more dynamic focus and explanation of the interaction between the midwife, the woman who had received midwifery care, and the health care system. STUDY LIMITATIONS: Lack of diversity in the sample and the midwives' familiarity with the author's past research represent a potential threat to the findings. Prolonged interviews and multiple narratives were gathered in an effort to control for this. CONCLUSION: Delphi studies are research exercises conducted by a panel of experts. Designing studies to further enhance, clarify, or refine their findings from the context of practice holds promise for their ability to influence clinical care.
Authors: Jina Kang; Yeol Kim; Yang Suk Yoo; Jin Young Choi; Su Jin Koh; Hyun Jung Jho; Youn Seon Choi; Jeanno Park; Do Ho Moon; Do Yeun Kim; Yun Jung; Won Chul Kim; Seung Hee Lim; Seung Joo Hwang; Sang Ok Choe; Desiree Jones Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Henry Ahn; Jeffrey Singh; Avery Nathens; Russell D MacDonald; Andrew Travers; John Tallon; Michael G Fehlings; Albert Yee Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Maria M Stollenwerk; Anna Gustafsson; Gudrun Edgren; Petri Gudmundsson; Magnus Lindqvist; Tommy Eriksson Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2022-06-20 Impact factor: 3.263
Authors: Hamed Ekhtiari; Peyman Ghobadi-Azbari; Axel Thielscher; Andrea Antal; Lucia M Li; A Duke Shereen; Yuranny Cabral-Calderin; Daniel Keeser; Til Ole Bergmann; Asif Jamil; Ines R Violante; Jorge Almeida; Marcus Meinzer; Hartwig R Siebner; Adam J Woods; Charlotte J Stagg; Rany Abend; Daria Antonenko; Tibor Auer; Marc Bächinger; Chris Baeken; Helen C Barron; Henry W Chase; Jenny Crinion; Abhishek Datta; Matthew H Davis; Mohsen Ebrahimi; Zeinab Esmaeilpour; Brian Falcone; Valentina Fiori; Iman Ghodratitoostani; Gadi Gilam; Roland H Grabner; Joel D Greenspan; Georg Groen; Gesa Hartwigsen; Tobias U Hauser; Christoph S Herrmann; Chi-Hung Juan; Bart Krekelberg; Stephanie Lefebvre; Sook-Lei Liew; Kristoffer H Madsen; Rasoul Mahdavifar-Khayati; Nastaran Malmir; Paola Marangolo; Andrew K Martin; Timothy J Meeker; Hossein Mohaddes Ardabili; Marius Moisa; Davide Momi; Beni Mulyana; Alexander Opitz; Natasza Orlov; Patrick Ragert; Christian C Ruff; Giulio Ruffini; Michaela Ruttorf; Arshiya Sangchooli; Klaus Schellhorn; Gottfried Schlaug; Bernhard Sehm; Ghazaleh Soleimani; Hosna Tavakoli; Benjamin Thompson; Dagmar Timmann; Aki Tsuchiyagaito; Martin Ulrich; Johannes Vosskuhl; Christiane A Weinrich; Mehran Zare-Bidoky; Xiaochu Zhang; Benedikt Zoefel; Michael A Nitsche; Marom Bikson Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 17.021
Authors: Patricia D Biondo; Cheryl L Nekolaichuk; Carla Stiles; Robin Fainsinger; Neil A Hagen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Susan Chatwood; Francois Paulette; Ross Baker; Astrid Eriksen; Ketil Lenert Hansen; Heidi Eriksen; Vanessa Hiratsuka; Josée Lavoie; Wendy Lou; Ian Mauro; James Orbinski; Nathalie Pabrum; Hanna Retallack; Adalsteinn Brown Journal: Int J Circumpolar Health Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 1.228