|
|
|
| Comparison of mail and meeting forms in evaluation of Delphi study |
| WANG Yan-min,ZHANG Cai-qian,WU Yin-yin,WANG Hui,HUANG Zheng-qiang,CHEN Kun |
| Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics,Zhejiang University School of Public Health,Hangzhou 310058,China |
|
|
|
Abstract Objective： To evaluate and compare mail and meeting forms in evaluation of Delphi study. Methods： Delphi study by mail and meeting approaches was used to determine the health information dataset.Experts were required to grade the listed items through three indexes: importance,necessity and availability.Study duration,coefficient of variation of items,authority coefficient and coordination coefficient of the experts′ opinion of two forms of study were calculated and compared. Results： The study duration was four months through mail form and 2 days through meeting.Compared with the first round,the coefficient of variation decreased (P<0.001,all of the three indexes by two forms),and the cooperation index increased (P<0.005) in the second round.The experts′ opinions were easier to be consistent through meeting than through mail（P<0.033）.And the authority coefficient by meeting consultation(0.83±0.05) was higher than that by mail (0.77±0.03) （P=0.001）. Conclusion： Both mail and meeting forms of Delphi study can determine the health information dataset,but meeting consultation is better and requires shorter study duration.
|
|
Published: 25 May 2011
|
信函和会议两种形式Delphi专家咨询的效果评价
目的：评价和比较信函和会议两种形式Delphi专家咨询的效果。 方法：通过信函和会议两种形式进行医疗卫生信息系统数据集的Delphi专家咨询，专家对各项指标从重要性、必需性和可获得性三个方面做出评价。计算并比较信函和会议两种形式咨询的周期、指标的变异系数、专家意见的权威系数、协调系数等。 结果：信函和会议形式完成两轮咨询的周期分别为4个月和2天。与第一轮相比，两种形式的咨询第二轮的变异系数均变小（P<0.001），协调系数变大（P<0.005）。比较两种形式的咨询效果发现，专家意见的权威系数（0.83±0.05）高于函询（0.77±0.03）（P=0.001）；且会议咨询第二轮协调系数上升比信函咨询明显，即专家意见更容易趋向收敛（P<0.033）。 结论：两种形式的Delphi专家咨询均能达到咨询目的，但会议咨询效果更好，且能弥补信函咨询周期过长的缺陷。
关键词：
德尔菲技术,
评价研究,
咨询,
信函咨询,
会议咨询
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
