The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques
Open accessAbstract
Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how 'consensus' is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of 'experts.' Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sinha, I. P., Smyth, R. L., & Williamson, P. R. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393 · Cited by 891
Dening, K. H., Jones, L., & Sampson, E. L. (2013) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216312464094 · Cited by 216
Cameron, A. J., & MacKeigan, L. D. (2012) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/ajpe76110 · Cited by 63
Cited by
Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2024 revisions of the McDonald criteria
Montalban, X., Lebrun-Frénay, C., Oh, J., Arrambide, G., Moccia, M., Pia Amato, M., Amezcua, L., Banwell, B., Bar-Or, A., Barkhof, F., et al. (2025) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(25)00270-4 · Cited by 551
Belton, I., MacDonald, A., Wright, G., & Hamlin, I. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.002 · Cited by 474
Sounderajah, V., Ashrafian, H., Golub, R. M., Shetty, S., De Fauw, J., Hooft, L., Moons, K., Collins, G., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047709 · Cited by 333
Research priorities for the COVID‐19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science
O'Connor, D. B., Aggleton, J. P., Chakrabarti, B., Cooper, C. L., Creswell, C., Dunsmuir, S., Fiske, S. T., Gathercole, S., Gough, B., Ireland, J. L., et al. (2020) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12468 · Cited by 210
Van Riel, N., Auwerx, K., Debbaut, P., Van Hees, S., & Schoenmakers, B. (2017) · BJGP Open · doi:10.3399/bjgpopen17x100833 · Cited by 159
Metadata
- Authors
- McMillan, S. S., King, M., & Tully, M. P.
- Venue
- International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
- Published
- 2016-02-05
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 655-62
- ISSN
- 2210-7703 (ISSN-L)
- 2210-7711
- OpenAlex
- W2260766877
- Cited by
- 1,491
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 166.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
- The paper
- McMillan, S. S., King, M., & Tully, M. P. (2016). How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.