Hybrid Delphi Research Articles

How do we know what aspects of gross anatomy to teach to our students? Can core syllabuses for the anatomical sciences be developed and accepted?

There is increasingly a call for clinical relevance in the teaching of the biomedical sciences within all health care programmes. This presupposes that there is an understanding of what is “core” material within the curriculum. To date, the anatomical sciences have been poorly served by the development of core syllabuses, although there have been commendable attempts to define a core syllabus for gross anatomy in medicine and for some medical specialties. The International Federation of Associations of Anatomists (IFAA) and of the European Federation for Experimental Morphology (EFEM) aims to formulate, on an international basis, core syllabuses for all branches of the anatomical sciences. This is being undertaken at the initial stage using Delphi Panels consisting of a team of anatomists, scientists and clinicians who evaluate syllabus content and accord each element/topic “essential”, “important”, “acceptable” or “not required” status. Their initial conjectures, published on the IFAA website, provide merely a framework to enable anatomical (and other cognate learned) societies and individual anatomists, clinicians and students to comment upon the syllabuses. Here is presented the concepts and methodological approaches underlying the hybrid Delphi process employed. Preliminary findings relating to the development of a neuroanatomy core syllabus are provided to illustrate the methods initially employed by a Delphi Panel. The approach is novel in that it is international in scope, is conceptually democratic, and is developmentally fluid in terms of availability for amendment. The aim is to set internationally recognized standards and thus to provide guidelines concerning anatomical knowledge when engaged in course development.

Assessment of a Novel Hybrid Delphi and Nominal Groups Technique to Evaluate Quality Indicators

To test the implementation of a novel structured panel process in the evaluation of quality indicators. National panel of 64 clinicians rating usefulness of indicator applications in 2008-2009. Hybrid panel combined Delphi Group and Nominal Group (NG) techniques to evaluate 81 indicator applications. The Delphi Group and NG rated 56 percent of indicator applications similarly. Group assignment (Delphi versus Nominal) was not significantly associated with mean ratings, but specialty and research interests of panelists, and indicator factors such as denominator level and proposed use were. Rating distributions narrowed significantly in 20.8 percent of applications between review rounds. The hybrid panel process facilitated information exchange and tightened rating distributions. Future assessments of this method might include a control panel.

Hybrid Delphi: A methodology to facilitate contribution from experts in professional contexts

This work presents a new methodology based on three well-known qualitative techniques (Focus Group, Nominal Group Technique and Delphi method), with a view to harmonising their potentialities and reducing their limitations, through application in real contexts with experts who are professionals in their respective activities. The main contribution of this methodology is its joint consideration of the needs of the investigators and also of experts who act in professional contexts, in order to improve the effectiveness of preceding techniques in achieving the scientific and social objectives of the study. We have tested this methodological approach in three real cases, with experts holding different responsibilities in different companies and public organisations, and the results secured are highly satisfactory, due to both the quantity and quality of the proposals obtained, and the satisfaction exhibited by the experts taking part, with regard to the research methodology.