Two different invitation approaches for consecutive rounds of a Delphi survey led to comparable final outcome
Two different invitation approaches for consecutive rounds of a Delphi survey led to comparable final outcome
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.034
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
van der Heijde, Desiree
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Boel, Anne;Navarro-Compan, Victoria;van der Heijde, Desiree
目标：有两种不同的方法让参与者参与连续的德尔菲调查：(1)邀请每一轮独立于前一轮的回应（“全轮”）和(2)邀请仅在前一轮回应时（“仅受访者”）。本研究旨在探讨邀请方式对德尔菲调查的回复率和最终结果的影响。研究设计和设置：专家（N = 188）和患者（N = 188）都参加了德尔菲调查，以更新轴性脊柱炎的核心结局集（COS）。一个1:1分配到两个实验组（即“全轮”[N = 187]和“仅受访者”[N = 189]）的研究是内置的。结果：“只有应答者组”的总体应答率（46%）低于“全方位组”（61%）。所有由“只有回应者组”选择纳入COS的领域，亦由“全面组别”选择。此外，在最后一轮之后，四个最重要的领域在各组之间是相同的，其他领域只有微小的差异。结论：邀请错过一轮的小组成员进入下一轮将更好地代表最初邀请的小组的意见，减少错误共识的机会，同时不影响德尔菲的最终结果。(C) 2020作者。Elsevier Inc.出版。
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. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.