Ellen Taylor1. 1. The Center for Health Design, Concord, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This overview is intended to provide the process framework for built environment researchers to use the Delphi method. The article outlines the methodological criteria originally established for the Delphi method, as well as commonly accepted modifications, to advance guidance for evidence-based built environment considerations. BACKGROUND: Increasingly used in healthcare research, the Delphi method is a process for gaining consensus through controlled feedback from a panel-a group made up of experts or individuals knowledgeable on the subject. The method is often used where there is limited or conflicting evidence, where participants may be geographically dispersed, and where anonymity is desired to control for dominant individuals. The Delphi method consists of panel selection, development of content surveys, and iterative stages of anonymous responses to gain consensus. Panelists receive feedback after each round in the form of a statistical representation of the overall group's response. The goal of multiple iterations in the Delphi method is to reduce the range of responses and gain expert consensus, which is often seen as more credible than conjecture or individual opinion. CONCLUSION: With a geographic diversity of healthcare design expertise, and with so many aspects of healthcare design lacking a robust body of supporting empirical research, the Delphi method is well-suited to developing evidence-based design recommendations and considerations for healthcare built environments.
OBJECTIVE: This overview is intended to provide the process framework for built environment researchers to use the Delphi method. The article outlines the methodological criteria originally established for the Delphi method, as well as commonly accepted modifications, to advance guidance for evidence-based built environment considerations. BACKGROUND: Increasingly used in healthcare research, the Delphi method is a process for gaining consensus through controlled feedback from a panel-a group made up of experts or individuals knowledgeable on the subject. The method is often used where there is limited or conflicting evidence, where participants may be geographically dispersed, and where anonymity is desired to control for dominant individuals. The Delphi method consists of panel selection, development of content surveys, and iterative stages of anonymous responses to gain consensus. Panelists receive feedback after each round in the form of a statistical representation of the overall group's response. The goal of multiple iterations in the Delphi method is to reduce the range of responses and gain expert consensus, which is often seen as more credible than conjecture or individual opinion. CONCLUSION: With a geographic diversity of healthcare design expertise, and with so many aspects of healthcare design lacking a robust body of supporting empirical research, the Delphi method is well-suited to developing evidence-based design recommendations and considerations for healthcare built environments.
Entities:
Keywords:
Delphi; built environment research; consensus; evidence-based design; healthcare; methodology
Authors: Prashant Nasa; Elie Azoulay; Ashish K Khanna; Ravi Jain; Sachin Gupta; Yash Javeri; Deven Juneja; Pradeep Rangappa; Krishnaswamy Sundararajan; Waleed Alhazzani; Massimo Antonelli; Yaseen M Arabi; Jan Bakker; Laurent J Brochard; Adam M Deane; Bin Du; Sharon Einav; Andrés Esteban; Ognjen Gajic; Samuel M Galvagno; Claude Guérin; Samir Jaber; Gopi C Khilnani; Younsuck Koh; Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou; Flavia R Machado; Manu L N G Malbrain; Jordi Mancebo; Michael T McCurdy; Brendan A McGrath; Sangeeta Mehta; Armand Mekontso-Dessap; Mervyn Mer; Michael Nurok; Pauline K Park; Paolo Pelosi; John V Peter; Jason Phua; David V Pilcher; Lise Piquilloud; Peter Schellongowski; Marcus J Schultz; Manu Shankar-Hari; Suveer Singh; Massimiliano Sorbello; Ravindranath Tiruvoipati; Andrew A Udy; Tobias Welte; Sheila N Myatra Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Nathan Augeard; Geoff Bostick; Jordan Miller; David Walton; Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme; Anne Hudon; André Bussières; Lynn Cooper; Nicol McNiven; Aliki Thomas; Lesley Singer; Scott M Fishman; Marie H Bement; Julia M Hush; Kathleen A Sluka; Judy Watt-Watson; Lisa C Carlesso; Sinead Dufour; Roland Fletcher; Katherine Harman; Judith Hunter; Suzy Ngomo; Neil Pearson; Kadija Perreault; Barbara Shay; Peter Stilwell; Susan Tupper; Timothy H Wideman Journal: Can J Pain Date: 2022-01-11