Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41249887›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetic counseling2025

An introduction to Delphi studies and consensus methods for genetic counselors.

Ian M MacFarlane, Heather Zierhut

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetic counseling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ian M MacFarlaneDepartment of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0896-1952
Heather ZierhutDepartment of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1941-664X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delphi studies, a type of consensus method, are instrumental in healthcare research for gathering expert perspectives, especially when conclusive evidence is not available. Developed in the 1950s, Delphi methodology is characterized by anonymity, iteration, controlled feedback, and statistical group response. The traditional Delphi method, along with its subforms, policy and decision, has been widely used across various fields, including genetic counseling. In genetic counseling, Delphi studies have been used for guideline development, curriculum design, clinical competency selection, and establishing quality metrics. The overall goal of this research methodology article is to explain the potential benefit of using a Delphi method in the field of genetic counseling and differentiate the Delphi method from other consensus methods available. Educational applications include creating curricula for Master's programs and defining competencies for clinical supervision. Delphi studies have also been used to develop core outcome sets and standardize outcome reporting measures in genetic counseling research. Quality assessment in genetic services has also been studied using Delphi studies. In addition to summarizing Delphi studies in genetic counseling, we provide an overview of the major questions to consider when constructing a Delphi protocol. We discuss common design and provide practical tips for implementation such as: who counts as an expert, how to decide how many rounds to do, how to set up the questionnaire, and how to report findings of a Delphi study. Researchers should thoughtfully consider these many points and the impacts these choices may have on their overall study results.

Indexed as

ConsensusDelphi TechniqueGenetic CounselingHumansconsensus methodsDelphipolicyresearchstatistics

Identifiers

PMID41249887
PMCPMC12623692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.