Results for the topic of <i>Method</i>.

Background While different proposals exist for a guideline on reporting Delphi studies, none of them has yet established itself in the health and social sciences and across the range of Delphi variants. This seems critical because empirical studies demonstrate a diversity of modifications in the conduction of Delphi studies and sometimes even errors in the reporting. The aim of the present study is to close this gap and formulate a general reporting guideline. Method In an international Delphi procedure, Delphi experts were surveyed online in three rounds to find consensus on a reporting guideline for Delphi studies in the health and social sciences. The respondents were selected via publications of Delphi studies. The preliminary reporting guideline, containing 65 items on five topics and presented for evaluation, had been developed based on a systematic review of the practice of Delphi studies and a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. Starting in the second Delphi round, the experts received feedback in the form of mean values, measures of dispersion, a summary of the open-ended responses and their own response in the previous round. The final draft of the reporting guideline contains the items on which at least 75% of the respondents agreed by assigning scale points 6 and 7 on a 7-point Likert scale. Results 1,072 experts were invited to participate. A total of 91 experts completed the first Delphi round, 69 experts the second round, and 56 experts the third round. Of the 65 items in the first draft of the reporting guideline, consensus was ultimately reached for 38 items addressing the five topics: Title and Abstract (n = 3), Context (n = 7), Method (n = 20), Results (n = 4) and Discussion (n = 4). Items focusing on theoretical research and on dissemination were either rejected or remained subjects of dissent. Discussion We assume a high level of acceptance and interdisciplinary suitability regarding the reporting guideline presented here and referred to as the "Delphi studies in social and health sciences–recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting" (DELPHISTAR). Use of this reporting guideline can substantially improve the ability to compare and evaluate Delphi studies.背景 尽管目前已有多项针对德尔菲法研究（Delphi studies）报告规范的提案，但尚无任何一项规范在健康与社会科学领域以及各类德尔菲法变体研究中得到广泛采用。这一点至关重要，因为实证研究表明，德尔菲法研究的实施存在多样化的调整，有时甚至在报告撰写中出现错误。本研究旨在填补这一空白，制定一套通用的报告撰写规范。 方法 本研究采用国际德尔菲法流程，通过三轮线上调研征询德尔菲专家意见，以期就健康与社会科学领域德尔菲法研究的报告规范达成共识。调研对象通过已发表的德尔菲法研究文献遴选产生。本次研究预先制定了涵盖五大主题、共65个条目并用于评估的报告规范初稿，该初稿基于对德尔菲法研究实践的系统综述，以及对现有德尔菲法研究报告规范的系统综述完成编制。自第二轮德尔菲调研起，专家将收到如下反馈：均值、离散程度统计量、开放式问题回应汇总，以及自身在上一轮调研中的作答内容。本报告规范的最终定稿收录了至少75%的调研受访者在7级李克特量表（7-point Likert scale）中勾选6分与7分（表示同意）的条目。 结果 本次调研共邀请1072名专家参与，最终分别有91名、69名与56名专家完成了第一、第二及第三轮德尔菲法调研。在初稿涵盖的65个条目中，最终有38个针对五大主题的条目达成共识，分别为：标题与摘要（n=3）、研究背景（n=7）、研究方法（n=20）、研究结果（n=4）以及讨论（n=4）。聚焦理论研究与成果传播的条目要么被否决，要么仍存在意见分歧。 讨论 本研究提出的报告规范被命名为「社会与健康科学领域德尔菲法研究——跨学科标准化报告建议」（DELPHISTAR），我们认为该规范具备较高的认可度与跨学科适用性。采用该报告规范将大幅提升德尔菲法研究的对比与评估效率。