Research methods for formal consensus development
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

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in

OR

Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
Subscribe
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

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

Or