Susan Humphrey-Murto1, Lara Varpio, Timothy J Wood, Carol Gonsalves, Lee-Anne Ufholz, Kelly Mascioli, Carol Wang, Thomas Foth. 1. 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.
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.
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.
Authors: Dharushana Muthulingam; Joshua Bia; Lynn M Madden; Scott O Farnum; Declan T Barry; Frederick L Altice Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2019-01-26
Authors: Jeannie L Callum; Calvin H Yeh; Andrew Petrosoniak; Mark J McVey; Stephanie Cope; Troy Thompson; Victoria Chin; Keyvan Karkouti; Avery B Nathens; Kimmo Murto; Suzanne Beno; Jacob Pendergrast; Andrew McDonald; Russell MacDonald; Neill K J Adhikari; Asim Alam; Donald Arnold; Lee Barratt; Andrew Beckett; Sue Brenneman; Hina Razzaq Chaudhry; Allison Collins; Margaret Harvey; Jacinthe Lampron; Clarita Margarido; Amanda McFarlan; Barto Nascimento; Wendy Owens; Menaka Pai; Sandro Rizoli; Theodora Ruijs; Robert Skeate; Teresa Skelton; Michelle Sholzberg; Kelly Syer; Jami-Lynn Viveiros; Josee Theriault; Alan Tinmouth; Rardi Van Heest; Susan White; Michelle Zeller; Katerina Pavenski Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2019-09-03
Authors: Shiva Zargham; Amy Hanson; Megan Laniewicz; Mary Sandquist; David O Kessler; Gregory E Gilbert; Aaron W Calhoun Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2020-06-17
Authors: Joost Dekker; Marie Amitami; Anne H Berman; Helen Brown; Bryan Cleal; Maria João Figueiras; Lila J Finney Rutten; Egil A Fors; Konstadina Griva; Jing Gu; Chris Keyworth; Maria Kleinstäuber; Claas Lahmann; Joseph T F Lau; Bernd Leplow; Li Li; Hanna Malmberg Gavelin; Ricarda Mewes; Phoenix K H Mo; Barbara Mullan; Frank J Penedo; Judith Prins; Teresa Rodríguez Rodríguez; Sharon A Simpson; Adrienne Stauder; Martti T Tuomisto; Deborah Jones Weiss; Urs M Nater Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2021-06
Authors: Benjamin Kinnear; Matthew Kelleher; Dana Sall; Daniel P Schauer; Eric J Warm; Andrea Kachelmeyer; Abigail Martini; Daniel J Schumacher Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 5.128