Abstract
Consensus group methods are widely used in research to identify and measure areas where incomplete evidence exists for decision-making. Despite their widespread use, these methods are often inconsistently used and reported. Using examples from the three most commonly used methods, the Delphi, Nominal Group and RAND/UCLA; this paper and associated Guide aim to describe these methods and to highlight common weaknesses in methodology and reporting. The paper outlines a series of recommendations to assist researchers using consensus group methods in providing a comprehensive description and justification of the steps taken in their study.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.
Notes on contributors
Susan Humphrey-Murto, MD, MEd, is an Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa and Acting Director of the Medical Education Research Support Unit in the Department of Innovation in Medical Education (DIME).
Lara Varpio, PhD, is an Associate Professor in Medicine, and Associate Director of the Master’s and PhD in Health Professions Education degree program at the Uniformed Services University for the Health Sciences, in Maryland, USA. Dr. Varpio specializes in medical communications and qualitative research.
Carol Gonsalves, MD, FRCPC, MMed, is an Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa and Clinician Investigator with the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Her medical education interests include needs assessment, curriculum development, and physician well-being.
Timothy J. Wood, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa. He has also held positions as a PhD Researcher with the Academy for Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa and Manager Research and Development, Medical Council of Canada.