Table 1
Rules on consensus and dissensus in different point-ranges.
| OVERALL PANEL MEDIAN IN 1–3 POINT RANGE | OVERALL PANEL MEDIAN IN 4–6 POINT RANGE | OVERALL PANEL MEDIAN IN 7–9 POINT RANGE | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Round 1 | Dissensus (<75%) | Equivocal → included in round 2 | Equivocal → included in round 2 | Equivocal → included in round 2 |
| Consensus (≥75%) | Irrelevant | Equivocal → included in round 2 | Relevant | |
| Round 2 | Dissensus (<75%) | Equivocal | Equivocal | Equivocal |
| Consensus (≥75%) | Irrelevant | Equivocal | Relevant |
Figure 1
Flowchart of participant inclusion.
Table 2
Characteristics of the Delphi panel members.
| CHARACTERISTIC | PARTICIPANTS (N = 17) | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender (%) | Female | 65 |
| Male | 35 | |
| Age (years) | Min-Max | 38–61 |
| Average (SD) | 52.5 (7.3) | |
| Highest level of education (%) | Bachelor | 12 |
| Master | 47 | |
| PhD | 41 | |
| Background (%)# | Research/academic | 24 |
| Healthcare provider | 41 | |
| Other^ | 47 | |
| Years of experience | Min-Max | 3–35 |
| Average (SD) | 16.4 (10.8) |
[i] # Several Delphi panel members had expertise in different backgrounds.
^ ‘Other’ included e.g. policy advisors, IC programme managers/project leaders, lecturers.
Table 3
Results of Delphi round 1 and 2.
| CATEGORY | TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS | ITEMS FOUND RELEVANT (CONSENSUS), N (%) | ITEMS UNDECIDED (EQUIVOCAL), N (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Round 1 | |||
| Total | 71 | 51 (72) | 20 (28) |
| Context | 15 | 12 (80) | 3 (20) |
| Mechanisms | 14 | 12 (86) | 2 (14) |
| Programme-activities | 20 | 12 (60) | 8 (40) |
| Outcomes | 22 | 15 (68) | 7 (32) |
| Round 2 | |||
| Total | 20 | 6 (30) | 14 (70) |
| Context | 3 | 2 (67) | 1 (33) |
| Mechanisms | 2 | 1 (50) | 1 (50) |
| Programme-activities | 8 | 2 (25) | 6 (75) |
| Outcomes | 7 | 1 (14) | 6 (86) |