↓ Skip to main content

How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 1,622)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1003 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1516 Mendeley
Title
How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara S. McMillan, Michelle King, Mary P. Tully

Abstract

Introduction The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Delphi Technique are consensus methods used in research that is directed at problem-solving, idea-generation, or determining priorities. While consensus methods are commonly used in health services literature, few studies in pharmacy practice use these methods. This paper provides an overview of the NGT and Delphi technique, including the steps involved and the types of research questions best suited to each method, with examples from the pharmacy literature. Methodology The NGT entails face-to-face discussion in small groups, and provides a prompt result for researchers. The classic NGT involves four key stages: silent generation, round robin, clarification and voting (ranking). Variations have occurred in relation to generating ideas, and how 'consensus' is obtained from participants. The Delphi technique uses a multistage self-completed questionnaire with individual feedback, to determine consensus from a larger group of 'experts.' Questionnaires have been mailed, or more recently, e-mailed to participants. When to use The NGT has been used to explore consumer and stakeholder views, while the Delphi technique is commonly used to develop guidelines with health professionals. Method choice is influenced by various factors, including the research question, the perception of consensus required, and associated practicalities such as time and geography. Limitations The NGT requires participants to personally attend a meeting. This may prove difficult to organise and geography may limit attendance. The Delphi technique can take weeks or months to conclude, especially if multiple rounds are required, and may be complex for lay people to complete.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,516 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 1513 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 249 16%
Student > Master 207 14%
Researcher 152 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 104 7%
Other 88 6%
Other 300 20%
Unknown 416 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 296 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 212 14%
Social Sciences 109 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 73 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 52 3%
Other 290 19%
Unknown 484 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,222,448
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#31
of 1,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,640
of 410,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 410,337 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.