Delphi Agreement

An email-based delphi study was conducted and comparative statistical tests were conducted. Ethical permission was obtained by the University of Teesside and the consent of each participant was obtained. A heterogeneous sample (n = 12) of student volunteers in care, occupational therapy and physiotherapy. A three-way delphinual study was conducted following a pilot project that verified that the statements were clear, clear and non-leaders. The statements were taken directly from McCallin`s paper [19], which examined interdisciplinary practice, a topic in which all students were equivalent experts based on their experience as students. The views and opinions obtained were not relevant to the question of the study, which examined the evolution of opinions towards consensus, not the very nature of consensus. In each round, participants were asked to respond by modulating each statement according to the degree of convergence and commenting on each statement as desired (see example in Table 1) and finally reordering the declarations according to their importance (see example in Table 2). In order to reduce the subjective incence of the stopping criteria used in Delphi studies, this study should examine whether consensus and stability in the Delphi process can be determined by a descriptive assessment of trends in the participants` perspective. We assessed the evolution of consensus and stability by looking at match percentages, importance rankings (based on simple descriptive statistics), and Kappa values. These were used to investigate how quantitative results can inform Delphi users, first about central trend/consensus production and, second, about stability, which reduces subjectivity in covering Delphi`s results. The use of simple descriptive statistics used in previous work [18] makes this method very user-friendly. The results presented here show two points that will improve Delphi studies in the future. First, the results showed that mean and SD can be used in combination with range and medians to show whether convergence occurred through movement toward a central trend.

This is consistent with the results of Greatorex and Dexter [18]. The magnitude of convergence, and thus the strength of convergence, is indicated by a comparison of the SD (aggregate strength of judgment) and the range (wider areas are an indication of outliers). Second, high or increasing Kappa values show the stability of individuals` views within the group and the degree of correspondence between towers. In addition, the reduction in the number of subjective comments reinforces quantitative observations of convergence. It is rare to see this in Delphi studies, and it is suggested that this analytical combination will be used in future Delphi studies. The slow introduction of big data into global efforts to reduce the prevalence of obesity may be due in part to a lack of clarity as to the exact meaning of the term and its importance for obesity research. . .

.