What is the most significant difference between the nominal group technique and the Delphi technique as forecasting approaches?

Answer & Explanation

Solved by verified expert

Rated Helpful

Answered by polinekaimurunjeru

inia pulvinar

nec facilisis. Pellentesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. Donec aliquet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor nec facilisis. Pellentesque d

Unlock full access to Course Hero

Explore over 16 million step-by-step answers from our library

Subscribe to view answer

Step-by-step explanation

itur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ult

tesque dapibus efficitur laoreet. Nam risus ante, dapibus a molestie consequat, ultrices ac magna. Fusce dui lectus, congue vel laoreet ac, dictum vitae odio. Donec aliquet. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam lacinia pulvinar tortor n

Student reviews

50% (2 ratings)

1. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311:376–380. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

2. Delbecq AL, van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. group techniques for program planning, a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company; 1975. [Google Scholar]

3. Black N, Murphy M, Lamping D, McKee M, Sanderson C, Askham J, et al. Consensus development methods: a review of best practice in creating clinical guidelines. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999;4(4):236–248. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Tully MP, Cantrill JA. The use of the Nominal group technique in pharmacy practice research: processes and practicalities. J Soc Admin Pharm. 1997;14:93–104. [Google Scholar]

5. McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the nominal group technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method. 2014;14:92–108. doi: 10.1007/s10742-014-0121-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Claxton JD, Ritchie JRB, Zaichkowsky J. The nominal group technique: its potential for consumer research. J Consum Res. 1980;7:308–313. doi: 10.1086/208818. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Bissell P, Ward PR, Noyce PR. Appropriateness measurement: application to advice-giving in community pharmacies. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(3):343–359. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00458-X. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

8. Potter M, Gordon S, Hamer P. The nominal group technique: a useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research. N Z J Physiother. 2004;32:126–130. [Google Scholar]

9. Gallagher M, Hares T, Spencer J, Bradshaw C, Webb I. The nominal group technique: A research tool for general practice? Fam Pract. 1993;10:76–81. doi: 10.1093/fampra/10.1.76. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Dening KH, Jones L, Sampson EL. Preferences for end-of-life care: a nominal group study of people with dementia and their family carers. Palliat Med. 2012;27(5):409–417. doi: 10.1177/0269216312464094. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

11. Bradley F, Schafheutle EI, Willis SC, Noyce PR. Changes to supervision in community pharmacy: pharmacist and pharmacy support staff views. Health Soc Care Community. 2013;21(6):644–654. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Hutchings HA, Rapport FL, Wright S, Doel MA, Wainwright P. Obtaining consensus regarding patient-centred professionalism in community pharmacy: nominal group work activity with professionals, stakeholders and members of the public. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;18(3):149–158. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:133–139. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S38408. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Allen J, Dyas J, Jones M. Building consensus in health care: a guide to using the nominal group technique. Br J Community Nurs. 2004;9(3):110–114. doi: 10.12968/bjcn.2004.9.3.12432. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, Bion J, Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320(7240):976–980. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7240.976. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

16. McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Consumers and carers versus pharmacy staff: Do their priorities for Australian Pharmacy Services align? Patient. 2015;8:411–422. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0105-9. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Duncan E. The nature and use of consensus methodology in practice. In: Kielhofner G, editor. Research in occupational therapy: methods of inquiry for enhancing practice. Philidelphia: F.A. Davis; 2006. pp. 401–410. [Google Scholar]

18. Harvey N, Holmes CA. Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus. Int J Nurs Pract. 2012;18(2):188–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2012.02017.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Elliott T, Shewchuk R. Using the nominal group technique to identify the problems experienced by persons living with severe physical disabilities. J Clin Psychol Med S. 2002;9(2):65–76. doi: 10.1023/A:1014931924809. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Miller D, Shewchuk R, Elliot TR, Richards S. Nominal group technique: a process for identifying diabetes self-care issues among patients and caregivers. Diabetes Educ 2000;26(2):305–10, 312, 314. [PubMed]

21. Drennan V, Walters K, Lenihan P, Cohen S, Myerson S, Iliffe S, et al. Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study. Fam Pract. 2007;24(5):454–460. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmm034. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Bond CM, Watson MC. The development of evidence-based guidelines for over-the-counter treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. Pharm World Sci. 2003;25(4):177–181. doi: 10.1023/A:1024842712675. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Tully MP, Cantrill JA. Exploring the domains of appropriateness of drug therapy, using the nominal group technique. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24:128–131. doi: 10.1023/A:1019522921621. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

24. Gastelurrutia MA, Benrimoj SI, Castrillon CC, de Amezua MJ, Fernandez-Llimos F, Faus MJ. Facilitators for practice change in Spanish community pharmacy. Pharm World Sci. 2009;31(1):32–39. doi: 10.1007/s11096-008-9261-0. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Cameron AJ, MacKeigan LD. Development and pilot testing of a multiple mini-interview for admission to a pharmacy degree program. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(1):10. doi: 10.5688/ajpe76110. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi survey: method techniques and applications. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1975. [Google Scholar]

27. Campbell SM, Cantrill JA. Consensus methods in prescribing research. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2001;26(1):5–14. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2710.2001.00331.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Chan A, Tan SH, Wong CM, Yap KY, Ko Y. Clinically significant drug–drug interactions between oral anticancer agents and nonanticancer agents: a Delphi survey of oncology pharmacists. Clin Ther. 2009;31(Pt 2):2379–2386. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.11.008. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Dean B, Barber N, Schachter M. What is a prescribing error? Qual Health Care. 2000;9:232–237. doi: 10.1136/qhc.9.4.232. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Mackellar A, Ashcroft DM, Bell D, James DH, Marriott J. Identifying criteria for the assessment of pharmacy students’ communication skills with patients. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007;71(3):50. doi: 10.5688/aj710350. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Campbell SM, Cantrill JA, Roberts R. Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study. BMJ. 2000;321:1–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7252.1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Baysari MT, Westbrook JI, Egan B, Day RO. Identification of strategies to reduce computerized alerts in an electronic prescribing system using a Delphi approach. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2013;192:8–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. Indicators of the appropriateness of long term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom: consensus development, face and content validity, feasibility and reliability. Qual Health Care. 1998;7:130–135. doi: 10.1136/qshc.7.3.130. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Aljamal M, Ashcroft DM, Tully MP. Development of indicators to assess the quality of medicines reconciliation at hospital admission: an e-Delphi study. Int J Pharm Pract 2016 (in press). [PubMed]

35. Aronson BD, Janke KK, Traynor AP. Investigating student pharmacist perceptions of professional engagement using a modified Delphi process. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012;76(7):125. doi: 10.5688/ajpe767125. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Cassar Flores A, Marshall S, Cordina M. Use of the Delphi technique to determine safety features to be included in a neonatal and paediatric prescription chart. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014;36(6):1179–1189. doi: 10.1007/s11096-014-0014-y. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. McDermott JH, Caiola SM, Kuhn KF, Stritter FT, Beza J. A delphi survey to identify the components of a community pharmacy clerkship. Am J Pharm Educ. 1995;59(4):334–341. [Google Scholar]

38. Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MS, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual. RAND corporation 2001 [cited 2015 July 11]; Available from: URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1269.

39. McBride AJ, Pates R, Ramadan R, McGowan C. Delphi survey of experts’ opinions on strategies used by community pharmacists to reduce over-the-counter drug misuse. Addiction. 2003;98(4):487–497. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00345.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Avery AJ, Savelyich BSP, Sheikh A, Cantrill J, Morris CJ, Fernando B, et al. Identifying and establishing consensus on the most important safety features of GP computer systems: e-Delphi study. Inform Prim Care. 2005;13:3–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Plumridge RJ. Forecast of the future of hospital pharmacy in Australia. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1981;38(10):1469–1472. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med. 2011;8(1):e1000393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Ahmed R, McCaffery KJ, Aslani P. Development and validation of a question prompt list for parents of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a Delphi study. Health Expect 2015 Jan 19. doi:10.1111/hex.12341. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

44. Mease PJ, Arnold LM, Crofford LJ, Williams DA, Russell IJ, Humphrey L, et al. Identifying the clinical domains of fibromyalgia: contributions from clinician and patient Delphi exercises. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(7):952–960. doi: 10.1002/art.23826. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Page 2

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

Examples of studies using the Delphi Technique