ArticleBMJ open2019
Participating in core outcome set development via Delphi surveys: qualitative interviews provide pointers to inform guidance.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Do patients and the public understand and feel engaged and valued after reading outcome set study invitations? A UK qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Identifying social prescribing core outcomes using a Delphi approach: findings and future directions.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2026Article
- Participants' experiences with the Delphi method: an online evaluation of a three-round Delphi across German-speaking countries.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Article
- Establishing a Research Agenda for Physiotherapy in Portugal: A Delphi Study.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025Article
- The participation of lifeworld experts in Delphi processes: A reflection on method and practice.MethodsX · 2025Review
- Supporting meaningful participation of older people in core outcome set development.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- How Delphi studies in the health sciences find consensus: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive assessment of oral health and occlusion in individuals with osteogenesis imperfecta.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of comprehensive cognitive, affective, and psychomotor competency assessment scales in psychodynamic psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- The NeoPACE study: study protocol for the development of a core outcome set for neonatal palliative care.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- Hospital-to-home transitions for children with medical complexity: part 2-a core outcome set.European journal of pediatrics · 2023Article
- Developing a Core Outcome Set for Assessing Clinical Safety Outcomes of Prostate Cancer in Clinical Trials of Traditional Chinese Medicine: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive assessment of osteogenesis imperfecta.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2021Article
- Methodology in core outcome set (COS) development: the impact of patient interviews and using a 5-point versus a 9-point Delphi rating scale on core outcome selection in a COS development study.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore participants' views of Delphi surveys in core outcome set (COS) development. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingPatients and health professionals (n=24) from seven recently concluded COS studies that had involved a Delphi survey took part in semistructured qualitative interviews (telephone and email exchange). Interviews explored participants' understanding of COS and their experiences of the Delphi survey. Analysis was thematic.
resultsSeveral interviewees had previously participated in two or more COS or Delphi surveys. Those with multiple experiences of participation generally understood the purpose of COS and were satisfied with the Delphi survey. However, some interviewees who were first-time participants struggled to understand the purpose of COS and aspects of the Delphi survey, which limited their contribution and satisfaction with the study. Interviewees also differed in how they interpreted and subsequently used the written documentation provided to COS participants. Some interviewees wanted guidance regarding whose perspective to take into account when scoring outcomes and on how to use the scoring system. Interviewees reported being motivated to take part by the international and expert consensus aspects of the Delphi survey. A few interviewees reported experiencing either positive or negative emotional impacts arising from when they reviewed outcomes and stakeholder feedback.
conclusionThis study identifies important information that should be communicated to COS Delphi study participants. It also indicates the importance of communicating about COS Delphi studies in ways that are accessible and salient to participants, to enhance their experience of participation and make the process more meaningful for all.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.