Sample size in multistakeholder Delphi surveys: at what minimum sample size do replicability of results stabilize?

被引:25
作者
Manyara, Anthony Muchai [1 ,2 ]
Purvis, Anthony [1 ]
Ciani, Oriana [3 ]
Collins, Gary S. [4 ]
Taylor, Rod S. [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Glasgow, Sch Hlth & Wellbeing, Glasgow, Scotland
[2] Univ Bristol, Bristol Med Sch, Global Hlth & Ageing Res Unit, Bristol, England
[3] SDA Bocconi Sch Management, Ctr Res Hlth & Social Care Management, Milan, Italy
[4] Univ Oxford, UK EQUATOR Ctr, Ctr Stat Med, Nuffield Dept Orthopaed Rheumatol & Musculoskeleta, Oxford, England
[5] Univ Glasgow, Sch Hlth & Wellbeing, MRC CSO Social & Publ Hlth Sci Unit, Glasgow, Scotland
[6] Univ Glasgow, Robertson Ctr Biostat, Sch Hlth & Wellbeing, Glasgow, Scotland
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Delphi; Sample size; Replicability; Resampling; Stability; Consensus; Expert panel; Quantitative research; Qualitative research; CONSENSUS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111485
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Objective: The minimum sample size for multistakeholder Delphi surveys remains understudied. Drawing from three large international multistakeholder Delphi surveys, this study aimed to: 1) investigate the effect of increasing sample size on replicability of results; 2) assess whether the level of replicability of results differed with participant characteristics: for example, gender, age, and profession. Methods: We used data from Delphi surveys to develop guidance for improved reporting of health-care intervention trials: SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension for surrogate end points (n = 175, 22 items rated); CONSORT-SPI [CONSORT extension for Social and Psychological Interventions] (n = 333, 77 items rated); and core outcome set for burn care (n = 553, 88 items rated). Resampling with replacement was used to draw random subsamples from the participant data set in each of the three surveys. For each subsample, the median value of all rated survey items was calculated and compared to the medians from the full participant data set. The median number (and interquartile range) of medians replicated was used to calculate the percentage replicability (and variability). High replicability was defined as >= 80% and moderate as 60% and <80% Results: The average median replicability (variability) as a percentage of total number of items rated from the three datasets was 81% (10%) at a sample size of 60. In one of the datasets (CONSORT-SPI), a >= 80% replicability was reached at a sample size of 80. On average, increasing the sample size from 80 to 160 increased the replicability of results by a further 3% and reduced variability by 1%. For subgroup analysis based on participant characteristics (eg, gender, age, professional role), using resampled samples of 20 to 100 showed that a sample size of 20 to 30 resulted to moderate replicability levels of 64% to 77%. Conclusion: We found that a minimum sample size of 60e80 participants in multistakeholder Delphi surveys provides a high level of replicability (>= 80%) in the results. For Delphi studies limited to individual stakeholder groups (such as researchers, clinicians, patients), a sample size of 20 to 30 per group may be sufficient. (c) 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 34 条
[1]   Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: Application of bootstrap data expansion [J].
Akins R.B. ;
Tolson H. ;
Cole B.R. .
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 5 (1)
[2]   Patient participation in Delphi surveys to develop core outcome sets: systematic review [J].
Barrington, Heather ;
Young, Bridget ;
Williamson, Paula R. .
BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (09)
[3]  
Black N, 1999, J Health Serv Res Policy, V4, P236
[4]   Improving outcome reporting in clinical trial reports and protocols: study protocol for the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) [J].
Butcher, Nancy J. ;
Monsour, Andrea ;
Mew, Emma J. ;
Szatmari, Peter ;
Pierro, Agostino ;
Kelly, Lauren E. ;
Farid-Kapadia, Mufiza ;
Chee-a-tow, Alyssandra ;
Saeed, Leena ;
Monga, Suneeta ;
Ungar, Wendy ;
Terwee, Caroline B. ;
Vohra, Sunita ;
Fergusson, Dean ;
Askie, Lisa M. ;
Williamson, Paula R. ;
Chan, An-Wen ;
Moher, David ;
Offringa, Martin .
TRIALS, 2019, 20 (1)
[5]   Secondary analysis of data from a core outcome set for burns demonstrated the need for involvement of lower income countries [J].
Davies, Philippa A. ;
Davies, A. K. ;
Kirkham, J. J. ;
Young, Amber E. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 144 :56-71
[6]   Development process of a consensus-driven CONSORT extension for randomised trials using an adaptive design [J].
Dimairo, Munyaradzi ;
Coates, Elizabeth ;
Pallmann, Philip ;
Todd, Susan ;
Julious, Steven A. ;
Jaki, Thomas ;
Wason, James ;
Mander, Adrian P. ;
Weir, Christopher J. ;
Koenig, Franz ;
Walton, Marc K. ;
Biggs, Katie ;
Nicholl, Jon ;
Hamasaki, Toshimitsu ;
Proschan, Michael A. ;
Scott, John A. ;
Ando, Yuki ;
Hind, Daniel ;
Altman, Douglas G. .
BMC MEDICINE, 2018, 16
[7]   Patient participation impacts outcome domain selection in core outcome sets for research: an updated systematic review [J].
Dodd, Susanna ;
Gorst, Sarah L. ;
Young, Amber ;
Lucas, Samuel W. ;
Williamson, Paula R. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 158 :127-133
[8]   ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document): A reporting guideline for consensus methods in biomedicine developed via a modified Delphi [J].
Gattrell, William T. ;
Logullo, Patricia ;
van Zuuren, Esther J. ;
Price, Amy ;
Hughes, Ellen L. ;
Blazey, Paul ;
Winchester, Christopher C. ;
Tovey, David ;
Goldman, Keith ;
Hungin, Amrit Pali ;
Harrison, Niall .
PLOS MEDICINE, 2024, 21 (01)
[9]   THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE - A CRITIQUE [J].
GOODMAN, CM .
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 1987, 12 (06) :729-734
[10]   Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests [J].
Hennink, Monique ;
Kaiser, Bonnie N. .
SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE, 2022, 292