• Login
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • The Christie Research Publications Repository
    • All Christie Publications
    • View Item
    •   Home
    • The Christie Research Publications Repository
    • All Christie Publications
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of ChristieCommunitiesTitleAuthorsIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsThis CollectionTitleAuthorsIssue DateSubmit DateSubjectsProfilesView

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Local Links

    The Christie WebsiteChristie Library and Knowledge Service

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    'Vicarious thinking' was a key driver of score change in Delphi surveys for COS development and is facilitated by feedback of results

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    Name:
    33011214.pdf
    Size:
    1.019Mb
    Format:
    PDF
    Description:
    From UNPAYWALL
    Download
    Authors
    Fish, Rebecca
    MacLennan, Steven
    Alkhaffaf, Bilal
    Williamson, P. R.
    Affiliation
    Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Wilmslow Road, Manchester
    Issue Date
    2020
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Objective: The objectives of this nested study were to (1) assess whether changes in scores between rounds altered the final degree of consensus achieved in three Delphi surveys conducted as part of COS development projects (anal, gastric, and prostate cancer), and (2) explore participants' reasons for changing scores between rounds. Study design and setting: All Delphi surveys were conducted online using DelphiManager software and included healthcare professionals and participating patients. Participants were invited to give a free-text reason whenever they changed their score across an important threshold on a 1-9 Likert scale (1-3 not important, 4-5 important, 7-9 critically important). Reasons for score change were coded by four researchers independently using an inductive-iterative approach. Results: In all three Delphi surveys, the number of outcomes reaching criteria for consensus was greater in R2 than R1. Twelve themes and 23 subthemes emerged from 2298 discrete reasons given for score change. The most common reasons for the change were "time to reflect" (482 responses, 23%) and vicarious thinking (424, 21%), with 68% (291) of vicarious thinking attributed to seeing other participant's scores. Conclusion: Our findings support conducting a Delphi survey over the use of a single questionnaire where building consensus is the objective. Time to reflect and vicarious thinking, facilitated by seeing other participant's scores, were important drivers of score change. How results are presented to participants between rounds and the duration of and time between rounds in a Delphi survey may, therefore, influence the results and should be clearly reported.
    Citation
    Fish R, MacLennan S, Alkhaffaf B, Williamson PR. "Vicarious thinking" was a key driver of score change in Delphi surveys for COS development and is facilitated by feedback of results. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;128:118-29.
    Journal
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10541/623379
    DOI
    10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.028
    PubMed ID
    33011214
    Additional Links
    https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.028
    Type
    Article
    Language
    en
    ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
    10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.028
    Scopus Count
    Collections
    All Christie Publications

    entitlement

    Related articles

    • Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development.
    • Authors: Brookes ST, Macefield RC, Williamson PR, McNair AG, Potter S, Blencowe NS, Strong S, Blazeby JM
    • Issue date: 2016 Aug 17
    • Multi-Round versus Real-Time Delphi survey approach for achieving consensus in the COHESION core outcome set: a randomised trial.
    • Authors: Quirke FA, Battin MR, Bernard C, Biesty L, Bloomfield FH, Daly M, Finucane E, Haas DM, Healy P, Hurley T, Koskei S, Meher S, Molloy EJ, Niaz M, Bhraonáin EN, Okaronon CO, Tabassum F, Walker K, Webbe JRH, Parkes MJ, Kirkham JJ, Devane D
    • Issue date: 2023 Jul 19
    • Impact of question order on prioritisation of outcomes in the development of a core outcome set: a randomised controlled trial.
    • Authors: Brookes ST, Chalmers KA, Avery KNL, Coulman K, Blazeby JM, ROMIO study group
    • Issue date: 2018 Jan 25
    • Multi-Round compared to Real-Time Delphi for consensus in core outcome set (COS) development: a randomised trial.
    • Authors: Quirke FA, Healy P, Bhraonáin EN, Daly M, Biesty L, Hurley T, Walker K, Meher S, Haas DM, Bloomfield FH, Kirkham JJ, Molloy EJ, Devane D
    • Issue date: 2021 Feb 15
    • How are trial outcomes prioritised by stakeholders from different regions? Analysis of an international Delphi survey to develop a core outcome set in gastric cancer surgery.
    • Authors: Alkhaffaf B, Metryka A, Blazeby JM, Glenny AM, Williamson PR, Bruce IA, GASTROS International Working Group
    • Issue date: 2021
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2025)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.