Research methods for formal consensus development
Intended for healthcare professionals
Practice guidelines Previous     Next

Research methods for formal consensus development

Daphne James Lecturer, University of Newcastle School of Health Sciences, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia
Helen Warren-Forward Associate professor, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia

Aim This paper reviews three research methods for developing consensus.

Background Consensus statements and guidelines are increasingly used to clarify and standardise practice, and inform health policy, when relevant and rigorous evidence is lacking. Clinicians need to evaluate the quality of practice guidelines to determine whether to incorporate them into clinical practice or reject them. Formal methods of developing consensus provide a scientific method that uses expert panel members to evaluate current evidence and expert opinions to produce consensus statements for clinical problems.

Data sources Online search for relevant literature was conducted in Medline and CINAHL.

Review methods A literature review of consensus, consensus development and research methods papers published in English in peer-reviewed journals.

Discussion The three methods of developing consensus discussed are the Delphi technique, nominal group technique and the consensus development conference. The techniques and their respective advantages are described, and examples from the literature are provided. The three methods are compared and a flowchart to assist researchers selecting an appropriate method is included. Online resources with information on the development and evaluation of clinical guidelines are reviewed.

Conclusion This paper will help researchers to select an appropriate research method for developing consensus statements and guidelines.

Implications for research/practice When developing consensus guidelines for clinical practice, researchers should use a formal research method to ensure rigour and credibility.

Nurse Researcher. 22, 3, 35-40. doi: 10.7748/nr.22.3.35.e1297

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 17 December 2013

Accepted: 10 March 2014

Your organisation does not have access to this article
Recommend to your librarian
RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

OR

3-month trial offer for �5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more