背景:Delphi技术在健康科学的不同子领域中进行。使用德尔菲技术的研究报告实践各不相同,Delphi技术的当前报告指南侧重于健康科学的各个子领域或研究的不同方面,因此适用性有限。本文的目的是找出相似之处,差异,以及现有德尔福报告准则可能存在的缺陷,并为全面适用的报告准则起草初步建议。
方法:在基于健康科学数据库的现有数据资源中对Delphi研究报告指南进行了系统的文献检索(Scopus,MEDLINE,CINAHL,Epistemonikos),包括2016年至2021年的出版物。2021年6月,我们在PubMed进行了额外的搜索,并通过联系科学德尔福专家网络(DeWiss)的专家进行了进一步的研究。对文章进行了标题和摘要筛选,其次是全文筛选包括的文章。我们定性和定量评估,比较和对比了使用内容分析确定的报告指南,并在Delphi专家网络成员中讨论了结果。
结果:我们检索了10篇关于Delphi研究报告指南的健康科学文章。在分析它们时,我们确定了九个主要类别(理由,专家小组,问卷调查,勘察设计,工艺规程,分析,Results,讨论,方法反思与伦理)。目前的报告准则差异很大,只有共识的一面出现在所有的人中。频率分布表明,大多数子类别只在个别文章中处理(例如,与会者会议,继续调查方法,结果的转移,验证,防止偏见),并且很少提及或反映Delphi技术的认识论基础。我们为健康科学部门的Delphi报告指南起草了初步建议。
结论:关于德尔菲研究的认识论基础的合理立场是必要的,以使过程的质量可评估,随着过程的报告,对研究结果进行分类和比较。这将增加该方法在健康科学领域的接受度以及在医学实践中的结果。Delphi报告指南必须,最重要的是,考虑到变体的多样性,与子领域相关的目标和应用领域,以及他们对Delphi技术的修改,以便全面适用于健康科学。
结论:我们的方法学综述结果未提供最终报告指南。新制定的提案旨在鼓励在进一步分析中进行讨论和达成一致。
BACKGROUND: Delphi techniques are conducted across different subfields in the health sciences. The reporting practices of studies using Delphi techniques vary, and current reporting guidelines for Delphi techniques focus on individual subfields of the health sciences or on different aspects of research and are therefore of limited applicability. The aim of this article was to identify similarities, differences, and possible shortcomings of existing Delphi reporting guidelines and to draft an initial proposal for a comprehensively applicable reporting guideline.
METHODS: A systematic literature search for reporting guidelines on Delphi studies was performed in existing data resources based on databases in the health sciences (Scopus, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Epistemonikos) including publications from 2016 to 2021. In June 2021, we conducted an additional search in PubMed and included further studies by contacting experts of the scientific Delphi expert network (DeWiss). Title and abstract screening of articles was performed, followed by a full-text screening of the articles included. We qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated, compared and contrasted the reporting guidelines identified using content analysis and discussed the results among the members of the Delphi expert network.
RESULTS: We retrieved ten health science articles with reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. In analyzing them, we identified nine main categories (Justification, Expert panel, Questionnaire, Survey design, Process regulation, Analyses, Results, Discussion, Methods reflection & Ethics). The current reporting guidelines vary significantly, with only the aspect of consensus appearing in all of them. Frequency distributions show that most of the subcategories are only addressed in individual articles (e.g., meeting of participants, proceeding with the survey method, transfer of the results, validation, prevention of bias) and that epistemological foundations of the Delphi technique are rarely mentioned or reflected on. We drafted an initial proposal for Delphi reporting guidelines for the health science sector.
CONCLUSIONS: A well-justified position concerning epistemological foundations of Delphi studies is necessary to make the quality of the process assessable and, along with the reporting of the process, to classify and compare study results. This will increase the acceptance of both the method in the health science sector and the results in medical practice. A Delphi reporting guideline must, above all, take into account the diversity of variants, subfield-related objectives and application areas, and their modifications of the Delphi technique in order to be comprehensively applicable in the health sciences.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our methodological review do not provide a final reporting guideline. The newly developed proposal is intended to encourage discussion and agreement in further analyses.