What are Delphi studies?
Open accessAbstract
Whenever developing training competencies, tools to support clinical practice or a response to a professional issue, seeking the opinion of experts is a common approach. By working to identify a consensus position, researchers can report findings on a specific question (or set of questions) that are based on the knowledge and experience of experts in their field. However, there are challenges to this approach. For example, what should be done when consensus cannot be reached? How can experts be engaged in a way that allows them to consider objectively the views of others and—where appropriate—change their own opinions in response? One approach that attempts to provide a clear method for gathering expert opinion is the Delphi technique . The Delphi technique was first developed in the 1950s by Norman Dalkey and Olaf Helmer in an attempt to gain reliable expert consensus. Specifically, they developed an approach—named after the Ancient Greek Oracle of Delphi , who could predict the future—which promoted anonymity and avoided direct confrontation between experts, so that the methods employed “…appear to be more conducive to independent thought on the part of the experts and to aid them in the gradual formation of a considered opinion ”.1 Though the original Delphi study was linked to the defence industry, the technique has spread to other research areas, including nursing.2 As with all research methods, the Delphi technique has evolved since it was first reported on in the 1960s. However, many of the fundamental characteristics of the approach still remain from Dalkey and Helmer’s original outline. First, the overarching approach is based on a …
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
CPGs specifying methods reported formal consensus through Delphi [35] or Glaser-like [36] techniques (19%), informal consensus (31%), or a voting system (18%).
“CPGs specifying methods reported formal consensus through Delphi [35] or Glaser-like [36] techniques (19%), informal consensus (that is, no mention of specific or recognized techniques, or insufficient detail; 31%), or a voting system (18%).”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 · Cited by 6,061 · see citing works
Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research
Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & McKenna, H. (2006) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03716.x · Cited by 1,511 · see citing works
Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions
Evans, D. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2702.2003.00662.x · Cited by 993 · see citing works
The use of Delphi and Nominal Group Technique in nursing education: A review
Foth, T., Efstathiou, N., Vanderspank‐Wright, B., Ufholz, L., Dütthorn, N., Zimansky, M., & Humphrey-Murto, S. M. (2016) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.04.015 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective
Winkler, J., & Moser, R. (2016) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.021 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Using a Delphi Method to Identify Human Factors Contributing to Nursing Errors
Roth, C. K., Brewer, M. A., & Wieck, K. L. (2016) · Nursing Forum · doi:10.1111/nuf.12178 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Development of Nurse Practitioner Competencies for Advance Care Planning
Heale, R., Rietze, L., Hill, L. C., & Roles, S. (2018) · Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing · doi:10.1097/njh.0000000000000425 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cederholm, T., Jensen, G. L., Ballesteros-Pomar, M. D., Blaauw, R., Correia, M. I. T. D., Cuerda, C., Evans, D. C., Fukushima, R., Ochoa Gautier, J. B., Gonzalez, M. C., et al. (2024) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2023.11.026 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Jensen, G. L., Cederholm, T., Ballesteros‐Pomar, M. D., Blaauw, R., Correia, M. I. T. D., Cuerda, C., Evans, D. C., Fukushima, R., Gautier, J. B. O., Gonzalez, M. C., et al. (2024) · Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · doi:10.1002/jpen.2590 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Unpacking the complexities of consciousness: Theories and reflections
Mudrik, L., Boly, M., Dehaene, S., Fleming, S. M., Lamme, V., Seth, A., & Melloni, L. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106053 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Cara, K. C., Goldman, D. M., Kollman, B. K., Amato, S. S., Tull, M. D., & Karlsen, M. C. (2023) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2023.03.007 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Stelzer, F. G., Bacelar, A., Éckeli, A. L., Negrão, A. B., Almeida, C. M. O., Franco, C. M. R., Pires, G. N., Gitaí, L. L. G., Sobreira-Neto, M. A., Assis, M., et al. (2025) · Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1812323 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Barrett, D., & Heale, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Hull (GB)
- Laurentian University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Barrett, David
- Venue
- Evidence Based Nursing
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2020-05-19
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 68-69
- ISSN
- 1367-6539 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-9618
- OpenAlex
- W3026401238
- Cited by
- 510
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 80 · 2025: 112 · 2024: 159 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 52.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Evidence-Based Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repository@Hull (Worktribe) (University of Hull) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
- Keywords
- Delphi method, expert consensus, consensus building, expert opinion, anonymity, nursing research methodology
- MeSH terms
- Delphi Technique, Humans, Research Design, Consensus
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
