Cargando…
Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial
BACKGROUND: The Delphi method is used in a wide variety of settings as a method of building consensus on important issues. Traditionally, the Delphi method uses multiple rounds of a survey to allow for feedback of other participants’ survey responses in between rounds. By informing participants abou...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885346/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05074-2 |
_version_ | 1783651584937295872 |
---|---|
author | Quirke, Fiona A. Healy, Patricia Bhraonáin, Elaine Ní Daly, Mandy Biesty, Linda Hurley, Tim Walker, Karen Meher, Shireen Haas, David M. Bloomfield, Frank H. Kirkham, Jamie J. Molloy, Eleanor J. Devane, Declan |
author_facet | Quirke, Fiona A. Healy, Patricia Bhraonáin, Elaine Ní Daly, Mandy Biesty, Linda Hurley, Tim Walker, Karen Meher, Shireen Haas, David M. Bloomfield, Frank H. Kirkham, Jamie J. Molloy, Eleanor J. Devane, Declan |
author_sort | Quirke, Fiona A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Delphi method is used in a wide variety of settings as a method of building consensus on important issues. Traditionally, the Delphi method uses multiple rounds of a survey to allow for feedback of other participants’ survey responses in between rounds. By informing participants about how others answer a question or prioritise specific topics, it allows for diverse opinions to inform the consensus process. For this reason, the Delphi method is popular as a consensus building approach in developing core outcome sets (COS), i.e. the minimum agreed set of standardised outcomes that should be measured and reported in studies on a specific health condition. In a COS setting, participants prioritise the importance of outcomes for inclusion in a COS. This usually involves participating in multiple rounds of a survey that can span several weeks or months. Challenges with participant retention have been highlighted in previous COS. We will compare a three-round with a Real-Time Delphi approach on prioritised outcomes. This trial is embedded within the COHESION study which is developing a COS for interventions treating neonatal encephalopathy. METHODS: One hundred and eighty stakeholders (parents/caregivers of infants diagnosed and treated with neonatal encephalopathy, healthcare providers and researchers) will be randomised using stratified randomisation to take part in either the Multi-Round or Real-Time Delphi. Stakeholders will rate the importance of the same set of outcomes in both arms. We will compare the prioritised outcomes at the end of both surveys as well as other parameters such as feedback, initial condition and iteration effects. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence to inform decisions on the use of Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi survey methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05074-2. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7885346 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-78853462021-02-17 Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial Quirke, Fiona A. Healy, Patricia Bhraonáin, Elaine Ní Daly, Mandy Biesty, Linda Hurley, Tim Walker, Karen Meher, Shireen Haas, David M. Bloomfield, Frank H. Kirkham, Jamie J. Molloy, Eleanor J. Devane, Declan Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: The Delphi method is used in a wide variety of settings as a method of building consensus on important issues. Traditionally, the Delphi method uses multiple rounds of a survey to allow for feedback of other participants’ survey responses in between rounds. By informing participants about how others answer a question or prioritise specific topics, it allows for diverse opinions to inform the consensus process. For this reason, the Delphi method is popular as a consensus building approach in developing core outcome sets (COS), i.e. the minimum agreed set of standardised outcomes that should be measured and reported in studies on a specific health condition. In a COS setting, participants prioritise the importance of outcomes for inclusion in a COS. This usually involves participating in multiple rounds of a survey that can span several weeks or months. Challenges with participant retention have been highlighted in previous COS. We will compare a three-round with a Real-Time Delphi approach on prioritised outcomes. This trial is embedded within the COHESION study which is developing a COS for interventions treating neonatal encephalopathy. METHODS: One hundred and eighty stakeholders (parents/caregivers of infants diagnosed and treated with neonatal encephalopathy, healthcare providers and researchers) will be randomised using stratified randomisation to take part in either the Multi-Round or Real-Time Delphi. Stakeholders will rate the importance of the same set of outcomes in both arms. We will compare the prioritised outcomes at the end of both surveys as well as other parameters such as feedback, initial condition and iteration effects. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence to inform decisions on the use of Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi survey methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04471103. Registered on 14 July 2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05074-2. BioMed Central 2021-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7885346/ /pubmed/33588938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05074-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Study Protocol Quirke, Fiona A. Healy, Patricia Bhraonáin, Elaine Ní Daly, Mandy Biesty, Linda Hurley, Tim Walker, Karen Meher, Shireen Haas, David M. Bloomfield, Frank H. Kirkham, Jamie J. Molloy, Eleanor J. Devane, Declan Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial |
title | Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial |
title_full | Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial |
title_fullStr | Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial |
title_short | Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial |
title_sort | multi-round compared to real-time delphi for consensus in core outcome set (cos) development: a randomised trial |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7885346/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33588938 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05074-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT quirkefionaa multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT healypatricia multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT bhraonainelaineni multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT dalymandy multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT biestylinda multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT hurleytim multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT walkerkaren multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT mehershireen multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT haasdavidm multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT bloomfieldfrankh multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT kirkhamjamiej multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT molloyeleanorj multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial AT devanedeclan multiroundcomparedtorealtimedelphiforconsensusincoreoutcomesetcosdevelopmentarandomisedtrial |