See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Heiko Dominik Waldmueller
Universitatsklinikum Aachen
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1745-3060
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
This approach uses the strong advantages a Delhi study has, identifies the disadvantages of traditional Delphi techniques and aims to introduce and evaluate a modified approach called 360-Degree Delphi. Key aspects of 360-Degree Delphi are tested by applying the approach to the needs and requirements analysis of a system for managing patients’ advance directives and living wills. 360-Degree Delphi, as a modified Delphi process, is specified as a structured workflow with the optional use of stakeholder groups. Consensus is created within individual stakeholder groups, but is also communicated between groups, while the iterative structure of the Delphi process remains unchanged. We hypothesize that (1) 360-Degree Delphi yields complementary statements from different stakeholders, which would be lost in classical Delphi; while (2) the variation of statements within individual stakeholder groups is lower than within the total collective. A user study is performed that addresses five stakeholder groups (patients, relatives, medical doctors, nurses and software developers) on the topic of living will communication in an emergency context. About 25% of the invited experts (stakeholders) agreed to take part in the Delphi round 0 (three patients, two relatives, three medical doctors, two qualified nurses and three developers), forming a structured panel of the five stakeholder groups. Two raters created a bottom-up coding, and 238 thematic codes were identified by the qualitative text analysis. Based on a consented coding list, a quantitative online-questionnaire was developed and send to different stakeholder groups. With respect to the hypotheses, Delphi round 0 had the following results: (1) doctors had a completely different focus from all the other stakeholder groups on possible channels of communications with the patient; (2) the dispersion of codes within individual stakeholder groups and within the total collective was approximately 28% higher in the total collective than in the sub-collectives, but without a marked effect size. With respect to the hypotheses, Delphi round 1 had the following results: different stakeholder groups had highly diverging opinions with respect to central questions on IT-development. In comparison, the total group would not be representative of either of these individual stakeholder needs (mean 4.344, stdev +/- 1.870)
Keywords
Delphi technique, 360-Degree Delphi, stakeholder, project planning, feedback, medical informatics, consensus, quality improvement, qualitative research, health information management, group processes
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
Version 3
Posted 16 Mar, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 11 Mar, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 10 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 04 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 29 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 25 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Feb, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 23 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 20 Nov, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 22 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 07 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Oct, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 06 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 31 Jul, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 23 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 18 Jul, 2019
Editor assigned
On 18 Jul, 2019
Editor invited
On 17 Jul, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Medical Informatics
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Heiko Dominik Waldmueller
Universitatsklinikum Aachen
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1745-3060
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
Version 3
Posted 16 Mar, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 11 Mar, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 10 Mar, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 04 Mar, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 29 Feb, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 25 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 16 Feb, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 10 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 10 Feb, 2020
Editor assigned
On 24 Jan, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 23 Jan, 2020
Editor invited
On 23 Jan, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 20 Nov, 2019
Review #2 received
Received 22 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 07 Oct, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Oct, 2019
Review #1 received
Received 06 Oct, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 31 Jul, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 23 Jul, 2019
First submitted
On 18 Jul, 2019
Editor assigned
On 18 Jul, 2019
Editor invited
On 17 Jul, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Medical Informatics
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.
This approach uses the strong advantages a Delhi study has, identifies the disadvantages of traditional Delphi techniques and aims to introduce and evaluate a modified approach called 360-Degree Delphi. Key aspects of 360-Degree Delphi are tested by applying the approach to the needs and requirements analysis of a system for managing patients’ advance directives and living wills. 360-Degree Delphi, as a modified Delphi process, is specified as a structured workflow with the optional use of stakeholder groups. Consensus is created within individual stakeholder groups, but is also communicated between groups, while the iterative structure of the Delphi process remains unchanged. We hypothesize that (1) 360-Degree Delphi yields complementary statements from different stakeholders, which would be lost in classical Delphi; while (2) the variation of statements within individual stakeholder groups is lower than within the total collective. A user study is performed that addresses five stakeholder groups (patients, relatives, medical doctors, nurses and software developers) on the topic of living will communication in an emergency context. About 25% of the invited experts (stakeholders) agreed to take part in the Delphi round 0 (three patients, two relatives, three medical doctors, two qualified nurses and three developers), forming a structured panel of the five stakeholder groups. Two raters created a bottom-up coding, and 238 thematic codes were identified by the qualitative text analysis. Based on a consented coding list, a quantitative online-questionnaire was developed and send to different stakeholder groups. With respect to the hypotheses, Delphi round 0 had the following results: (1) doctors had a completely different focus from all the other stakeholder groups on possible channels of communications with the patient; (2) the dispersion of codes within individual stakeholder groups and within the total collective was approximately 28% higher in the total collective than in the sub-collectives, but without a marked effect size. With respect to the hypotheses, Delphi round 1 had the following results: different stakeholder groups had highly diverging opinions with respect to central questions on IT-development. In comparison, the total group would not be representative of either of these individual stakeholder needs (mean 4.344, stdev +/- 1.870)
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...