Cited by 779Delphi Technique in ResearchReliability and Agreement in MeasurementHealth Education and Validation

Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research

Open access
Jorm, Anthony F·2015·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: The article gives an introductory overview of the use of the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. It explains the rationale for using the method, examines the range of uses to which it has been put in mental health research, and describes the stages of carrying out a Delphi study using examples from the literature. Method: To ascertain the range of uses, a systematic search was carried out in PubMed. The article also examines the implications of ‘wisdom of crowds’ research for how to conduct Delphi studies. Results: The Delphi method is a systematic way of determining expert consensus that is useful for answering questions that are not amenable to experimental and epidemiological methods. The validity of the approach is supported by ‘wisdom of crowds’ research showing that groups can make good judgements under certain conditions. In mental health research, the Delphi method has been used for making estimations where there is incomplete evidence (e.g. What is the global prevalence of dementia?), making predictions (e.g. What types of interactions with a person who is suicidal will reduce their chance of suicide?), determining collective values (e.g. What areas of research should be given greatest priority?) and defining foundational concepts (e.g. How should we define ‘relapse’?). A range of experts have been used in Delphi research, including clinicians, researchers, consumers and caregivers. Conclusion: The Delphi method has a wide range of potential uses in mental health research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0004867415600891

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [55]55. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 49 (10), pp.887-897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415600891. Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/91136 File Description: Accepted version

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jorm, A. F.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Jorm, Anthony F
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2015-08-21
Volume
49
Issue
10
Pages
887-897
ISSN
  • 0004-8674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1614
OpenAlex
W2111751736
Cited by
765
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 115 · 2023: 82 · 2022: 93 · 2021: 80 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 1
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Delphi method, expert consensus, mental health research, wisdom of crowds, suicide prevention, research prioritization, relapse definition
MeSH terms
Consensus Development Conferences as Topic, Consensus Statements as Topic, Delphi Technique, Humans, Mental Health, Consensus, Biomedical Research

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