PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10425993

It's all in a name. When is a 'Delphi study' not a Delphi study?

Abstract

As nursing researchers we need to fully understand the origins of the methods we are using in research investigations. Without an in-depth understanding, we may find ourselves violating fundamental underpinning assumptions or conventions through ignorance, and the resulting studies are unlikely to stand up to tests of congruence and rigour. This paper is a discussion of some complexities encountered while exploring the literature on the Delphi technique, a research method we had believed to be straightforward. The Delphi method had been used extensively since its development in the 1950s, and its use in nursing research appears to be increasing. Our explorations revealed that, rather than a simple means of obtaining the judgments of experts, modifications and adaptations over the years have dramatically changed 'the' Delphi. Anyone wishing to use the method needs a sound knowledge of complex theoretical issues associated with its implementation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Crisp, D Pelletier, C Duffield, S Nagy, A Adams. It's all in a name. When is a 'Delphi study' not a Delphi study?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10425993/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.

AIM: To evaluate current clinical practice in the UK in the management of the anophthalmic socket; choice of enucleation, evisceration, type of orbital implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. METHODS: All consultant ophthalmologists in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Questions included their practice subspecialty and number of enucleations and eviscerations performed in 2003. Specific questions addressed choice of implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. RESULTS: 456/896 (51%) consultants responded, of which 162 (35%) had a specific interest in oculoplastics, lacrimal, orbits or oncology. Only 243/456 (53%) did enucleations or eviscerations. 92% inserted an orbital implant after primary enucleation, 69% after non-endophthalmitis evisceration, whereas only 43% did so after evisceration for endophthalmitis (50% as a delayed procedure). 55% used porous orbital implants (porous polyethylene, hydroxyapatite or alumina) as their first choice and 42% used acrylic. Most implants inserted were spherical, sized 18-20 mm in diameter. 57% wrapped the implant after enucleation, using salvaged autogenous sclera (20%), donor sclera (28%) and synthetic Vicryl or Mersilene mesh (42%). A minority (7%) placed motility pegs in selected cases, usually as a secondary procedure. 14% of respondents reported implant exposure for each type of procedure and extrusion was reported by 4% after enucleation and 3% after evisceration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights contemporary anophthalmic socket practice in the UK. Most surgeons use porous orbital implants with a synthetic wrap after enucleation and only few perform motility pegging.

Consultants↗