Anne Boel1, Victoria Navarro-Compán2, Robert Landewé3, Désirée van der Heijde4. 1. Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.h.e.m.boel@lumc.nl. 2. Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 3. Department of Rheumatology, Zuyderland Medical Center Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Immunology & Rheumatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There are two different approaches to involve participants in consecutive rounds of a Delphi survey: (1) invitation to every round independent of response to the previous round ("all-rounds") and (2) invitation only when responded to the previous round ("respondents-only"). This study aimed to investigate the effect of invitation approach on the response rate and final outcome of a Delphi survey. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Both experts (N = 188) and patients (N = 188) took part in a Delphi survey to update the core outcome set (COS) for axial spondyloarthritis. A study with 1:1 allocation to two experimental groups (ie, "all-rounds" [N = 187] and "respondents-only" [N = 189]) was built-in. RESULTS: The overall response rate was lower in the "respondents-only group" (46%) compared to the "all-rounds group" (61%). All domains that were selected for inclusion in the COS by the "respondents-only group" were also selected by the "all-rounds group." Additionally, the four most important domains were identical between groups after the final round, with only minor differences in the other domains. CONCLUSION: Inviting panel members who missed a round to a subsequent round will lead to a better representation of opinions of the originally invited panel and reduces the chance of false consensus, while it does not influence the final outcome of the Delphi.
OBJECTIVES: There are two different approaches to involve participants in consecutive rounds of a Delphi survey: (1) invitation to every round independent of response to the previous round ("all-rounds") and (2) invitation only when responded to the previous round ("respondents-only"). This study aimed to investigate the effect of invitation approach on the response rate and final outcome of a Delphi survey. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Both experts (N = 188) and patients (N = 188) took part in a Delphi survey to update the core outcome set (COS) for axial spondyloarthritis. A study with 1:1 allocation to two experimental groups (ie, "all-rounds" [N = 187] and "respondents-only" [N = 189]) was built-in. RESULTS: The overall response rate was lower in the "respondents-only group" (46%) compared to the "all-rounds group" (61%). All domains that were selected for inclusion in the COS by the "respondents-only group" were also selected by the "all-rounds group." Additionally, the four most important domains were identical between groups after the final round, with only minor differences in the other domains. CONCLUSION: Inviting panel members who missed a round to a subsequent round will lead to a better representation of opinions of the originally invited panel and reduces the chance of false consensus, while it does not influence the final outcome of the Delphi.
Authors: Baptiste Vasey; Myura Nagendran; Bruce Campbell; David A Clifton; Gary S Collins; Spiros Denaxas; Alastair K Denniston; Livia Faes; Bart Geerts; Mudathir Ibrahim; Xiaoxuan Liu; Bilal A Mateen; Piyush Mathur; Melissa D McCradden; Lauren Morgan; Johan Ordish; Campbell Rogers; Suchi Saria; Daniel S W Ting; Peter Watkinson; Wim Weber; Peter Wheatstone; Peter McCulloch Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Baptiste Vasey; Myura Nagendran; Bruce Campbell; David A Clifton; Gary S Collins; Spiros Denaxas; Alastair K Denniston; Livia Faes; Bart Geerts; Mudathir Ibrahim; Xiaoxuan Liu; Bilal A Mateen; Piyush Mathur; Melissa D McCradden; Lauren Morgan; Johan Ordish; Campbell Rogers; Suchi Saria; Daniel S W Ting; Peter Watkinson; Wim Weber; Peter Wheatstone; Peter McCulloch Journal: BMJ Date: 2022-05-18
Authors: Esther J van Zuuren; Patricia Logullo; Amy Price; Zbys Fedorowicz; Ellen L Hughes; William T Gattrell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-09-08 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Kylie E Hunter; Angela C Webster; Mike Clarke; Matthew J Page; Sol Libesman; Peter J Godolphin; Mason Aberoumand; Larysa H M Rydzewska; Rui Wang; Aidan C Tan; Wentao Li; Ben W Mol; Melina Willson; Vicki Brown; Talia Palacios; Anna Lene Seidler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-11 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Gary S Collins; Karel Gm Moons; Paula Dhiman; Constanza L Andaur Navarro; Jie Ma; Lotty Hooft; Johannes B Reitsma; Patricia Logullo; Andrew L Beam; Lily Peng; Ben Van Calster; Maarten van Smeden; Richard D Riley Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 2.692