The Delphi Process in Dental Research

Cramer, Carl K.; Klasser, Gary D.; Epstein, Joel B.; Sheps, Samuel B.

doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2008.09.002

Cited by 50 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[5678910] The experts were full and associate professors and researchers with experience in the field of oral medicine. The level of experience was evaluated considering the number of scientific publications and years of clinical activity (at least 10 years).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first round, was composed of 5 open-ended questions each of approximately 20–25 words [Table 1]. [910111213] The experts were asked to respond by giving a maximum of 5 suggestions for each question. From the second round, the experts were asked to grade their agreement about the items derived from the first round on a 6-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of views on the need for continuing education on oral cancer between general dentists and oral medicine experts: A Delphi survey

Leuci

Aria

Nicolò

et al. 2016

J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The role of dental professionals in screening for oral cancer has been limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate and compare the educational priorities of oral medicine specialists, general dental practitioners, and doctors of dental surgery with regards to the diagnosis and management of oral cancers and potential malignant disorders.Study Design:This was a longitudinal survey.Materials and Methods:A Delphi survey was directed to a panel of 25 oral medicine specialists asking them to identify the major difficulties in diagnosing and managing patients with oral cancer or suspected malignancy. In a second phase, two groups of generalists were asked to express their ratings on the issues identified by experts.Results:The response rate of the experts to the survey was 84%, while only 44% of the generalists participated. Although the three groups agreed on most of the issues, there were significant differences of opinions on 10 of the items proposed by specialists (P < 0.05 from the Kruskal–Wallis test), which were observed mainly between experts and general dental practitioners (P < 0.017 from the Mann–Whitney U test). The opinion of the participants about future investments in the field of education resulted in similar results (P > 0.05 from the Chi-square test), with the specialists ranking highest on mandatory annual thematic courses, while the generalists prioritizing more interactive and extensive pre-graduation courses on oral cancer detection.Conclusion:This study confirms a clear need to improve the educational foundation on oral cancer by a didactic process starting with pre-graduation courses that should involve National Health Care Services, National Dental Associations, and academia.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of views on the need for continuing education on oral cancer between general dentists and oral medicine experts: A Delphi survey

Leuci

Aria

Nicolò

et al. 2016

J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is described as a structured group communication process that allows the production of information for decision-making [14]. This allows an expert group to resolve complex problems with the goal of producing useful guidance and opinions for decision makers [15]. The Delphi method has been used in oral healthcare research for some time and is a popular and acceptable means of answering questions of clinical, educational and policy issues [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This allows an expert group to resolve complex problems with the goal of producing useful guidance and opinions for decision makers [15]. The Delphi method has been used in oral healthcare research for some time and is a popular and acceptable means of answering questions of clinical, educational and policy issues [15]. According to Hsu and Sanford the Delphi technique is often designed for the purpose of goal setting, policy investigation, or predicting the occurrence of future events, attempting to address “what could/should be” [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Should Dental Services for People with Disabilities Be Like? Results of an Irish Delphi Panel Survey

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study aimed to generate prioritised goals for oral health services for people with disabilities as a first step in meeting the need for evidence based oral health services for people with disabilities in Ireland.MethodsThe study used a three round modified e-Delphi method, involving dental service professionals and people with disabilities or their representatives, in Ireland. Three rounds were completed online using SurveyMonkey. Round 1 asked: “List what you think dental services for people with disabilities in Ireland should be like.” Items for subsequent rounds were generated from responses to Round 1. Round 2 and Round 3 used 5 point Likert scales to rank these items by priority: from No Priority (1) to Top Priority (5). Consensus was achieved on each item where at least 80% of respondents considered an item either High or Top Priority. A consensus meeting concluded the process.ResultsSixty-one panelists started and 48 completed the survey. The Delphi panel agreed on level of priority for 69 items and generated 16 consensus statements. These statements covered a range of topics such as access to care, availability of information and training, quality of care, dental treatment and cost. A recurrent theme relating to the appropriateness of care to individual need arose across topics suggesting a need to match service delivery according to the individual's needs, wants and expectations rather than the disability type/diagnosis based service which predominates today.ConclusionsThis process produced a list of prioritised goals for dental services for people with disabilities. This creates a foundation for building evidence-based service models for people with disabilities in Ireland.

show abstract

“…Stakeholders may not be able to attend physical meetings due to limited time or money (resource bias [33]). Minority stakeholder groups may not respond if they feel their views are unlikely to be heard over the views of the majority (intimidation bias [34]). Similarly, stakeholders may not engage if they believe that their views will not be heard due to failures on the part of the reviewers or the review methodology (we propose the term faith bias).…”

Section: Stakeholder Responses To Invitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People have a stake in conservation and environmental management both for their own interests and the sake of the environment itself. Environmental decision-making has changed somewhat in recent decades to account for unintentional impacts on human wellbeing. The involvement of stakeholders in environmental projects has been recognised as critical for ensuring their success and equally for the syntheses of evidence of what works, where, and for whom, providing key benefits and challenges. As a result of increased interest in systematic reviews of complex management issues, there is a need for guidance in best practices for stakeholder engagement. Here, we propose a framework for stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews/systematic maps, highlighting recommendations and advice that are critical for effective, efficient and meaningful engagement of stakeholders. The discussion herein aims to provide a toolbox of stakeholder engagement activities, whilst also recommending approaches from stakeholder engagement research that may prove to be particularly useful for systematic reviews and systematic maps.

show abstract

The Delphi Process in Dental Research

Cited by 50 publications

References 33 publications

Comparison of views on the need for continuing education on oral cancer between general dentists and oral medicine experts: A Delphi survey

Comparison of views on the need for continuing education on oral cancer between general dentists and oral medicine experts: A Delphi survey

What Should Dental Services for People with Disabilities Be Like? Results of an Irish Delphi Panel Survey

A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About