The Delphi method is a systematic and iterative approach to communication that seeks to aggregate opinions from a diverse set of experts to generate clarity and support (evidence) based on this collective wisdom. It can be used to help forecast future impact, consolidate a position, or to define policy and many sectors are using it today including healthcare. Many treatment or management guidelines have been developed using a version of the Delphi method.
One version of the Delphi method which has been refined and routinely employed by us is amplified Delphi consensus. The Delphi method relies on collecting opinions from a panel of experts and amplified consensus seeks to maximise the size of this panel of responders within the constraints of the expertise required on the topic in hand. Typically this means 100+ responders in localised programs and in some regional / pan-region projects this can be as large as 500+.
A feature of communication or evidence generated using Triducive’s amplified consensus method is peer-advocacy. Because outputs from Delphi programs are generated by stakeholders who represent an important constituent of the health system itself, they help create social proof for the direction recommended as a result of the work. An important coalition of experts now have a clearer and more confident voice to call for change across peer groups and across other disciplines they work with. The question for other stakeholders moves from ‘why not do this?’ to ‘’why wouldn’t you?’.
The Amplified Delphi consensus can be completed virtually — which helps to overcome the barriers of time, cost, and geography. Typically possible to deliver within 5-6 months, there are 5 key steps to delivering a successful Delphi study. They outline the broad process and how Triducive can help effective implementation in practice.
“This type of evidence remains a necessary component in the armamentarium used to determine the answer to a clinical question” Ref 1: Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, Vol 34, No 2 (February), 2018: pp 349-351 349