ArticleBMJ open2025
Participants' experiences with the Delphi method: an online evaluation of a three-round Delphi across German-speaking countries.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acute Deterioration in Long-Term Care: A Delphi Study of Indicators, Care Pathways and Implementation Strategies.International journal of nursing practice · 2026Article
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
objectivesThis study evaluates how participants experienced and assessed a three-round Delphi study on the terminology of developmental language disorders in childhood. It compares participants who completed all rounds (completers) with those who withdrew early (dropouts) and aims to derive methodological quality criteria for future Delphi studies.
designThe evaluation is based on a Delphi study conducted in 2021/2022 across five German-speaking countries. After the final round, n=179 experts (40% response rate) completed a standardised survey assessing their expertise, motivation, reasons for discontinuation, time commitment and perceptions of questionnaire and feedback design. Responses from completers (n=156) and dropouts (n=23) were analysed descriptively.
resultsMost participants had no prior experience with Delphi methods but rated the study positively and considered the topic highly relevant. Completers reported their subjective time commitment to be lower and rated the handling of the questionnaire more positively than dropouts. Feedback was used by nearly half of all experts and was more actively considered by completers. Lack of time was the most common reason for discontinuation.
conclusionThe findings confirm the feasibility and acceptance of the Delphi method in interdisciplinary health research. In addition to established methodological principles, topic relevance, clear communication and time commitment emerged as key areas for expert motivation and engagement.
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.