The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of Delphi in health sciences research: A narrative review
Open accessAbstract
The use of the Delphi technique is prevalent across health sciences research, and it is used to identify priorities, reach consensus on issues of importance and establish clinical guidelines. Thus, as a form of expert opinion research, it can address fundamental questions present in healthcare. However, there is little guidance on how to conduct them, resulting in heterogenous Delphi studies and methodological confusion. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to introduce the use of the Delphi method, assess the application of the Delphi technique within health sciences research, discuss areas of methodological uncertainty and propose recommendations. Advantages of the use of Delphi include anonymity, controlled feedback, flexibility for the choice of statistical analysis, and the ability to gather participants from geographically diverse areas. Areas of methodological uncertainty worthy of further discussion broadly include experts and data management. For experts, the definition and number of participants remain issues of contention, while there are ongoing difficulties with expert selection and retention. For data management, there are issues with data collection, defining consensus and methods of data analysis, such as percent agreement, central tendency, measures of dispersion, and inferential statistics. Overall, the use of Delphi addresses important issues present in health sciences research, but methodological issues remain. It is likely that the aggregation of future Delphi studies will eventually pave the way for more comprehensive reporting guidelines and subsequent methodological clarity.
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
(2016) · Andalas University Repository (Andalas University) · Cited by 8,424
Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique
Hasson, F. (2000) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01567.x · Cited by 5,951
The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/pdz9-th90 · Cited by 4,500
Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002 · Cited by 3,740
SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles
Baethge, C., Goldbeck-Wood, S., & Mertens, S. (2019) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8 · Cited by 3,469
Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes
(1976) · The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science · doi:10.1177/002188637601200414 · Cited by 2,813
The Delphi technique: myths and realities
Powell, C. (2003) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x · Cited by 2,584
Boulkedid, R., Abdoul, H., Loustau, M., Sibony, O., & Alberti, C. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020476 · Cited by 2,045
The Delphi Method for Graduate Research
J. Skulmoski, G., T. Hartman, F., & Krahn, J. (2007) · Journal of Information Technology Education: Research · doi:10.28945/199 · Cited by 1,834
Consensus measurement in Delphi studies
von der Gracht, H. A. (2012) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013 · Cited by 1,831
Metadata
- Authors
- Shang, Z.
- Venue
- Medicine
- Published
- 2023-02-17
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e32829
- ISSN
- 0025-7974 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4321180728
- Cited by
- 657
- References
- 71
- FWCI
- 36.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Use of Delphi in health sciences research: A narrative review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/md.0000000000032829
- The paper
- Shang, Z. (2023). Use of Delphi in health sciences research: A narrative review. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000032829
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.