Suchergebnisse

Crowdsourcing, an open call for the public to collaborate and participate in problem solving, has been increasingly employed as a method in health-related research studies. Various reviews of the literature across different disciplines found crowdsourcing being used for data collection, processing, and analysis as well as tasks such as problem solving, data processing, surveillance/monitoring, and surveying. Studies on crowdsourcing tend to focus on its use of software, technology and online platforms, or its application for the purposes previously noted. There is need for further exploration to understand how best to use crowdsourcing for research, as there is limited guidance for researchers who are undertaking crowdsourcing for the purposes of scientific study. Numerous authors have identified gaps in research related to crowdsourcing, including a lack of decision aids to assist researchers using crowdsourcing, and best-practice guidelines. This exploratory study looks at crowdsourcing as a research method by understanding how and why it is being used, through application of a modified Delphi technique. It begins to articulate how crowdsourcing is applied in practice by researchers, and its alignment with existing research methods. The result is a conceptual framework for crowdsourcing, developed within traditional and existing research approaches as a first step toward its use in research.

This manual provides methodological guidance and practical advice for what to consider when designing, implementing, and reporting Delphi panel results. It also includes a checklist that can be used to assess a Delphi study's quality.

Introduction: Biosimilars have the potential to enhance the sustainability of evolving health care systems. A sustainable biosimilars market requires all stakeholders to balance competition and supply chain security. However, there is significant variation in the policies for pricing, procurement, and use of biosimilars in the European Union. A modified Delphi process was conducted to achieve expert consensus on biosimilar market sustainability in Europe. Methods: The priorities of 11 stakeholders were explored in three stages: a brainstorming stage supported by a systematic literature review (SLR) and key materials identified by the participants; development and review of statements derived during brainstorming; and a facilitated roundtable discussion. Results: Participants argued that a sustainable biosimilar market must deliver tangible and transparent benefits to the health care system, while meeting the needs of all stakeholders. Key drivers of biosimilar market sustainability included: (i) competition is more effective than regulation; (ii) there should be incentives to ensure industry investment in biosimilar development and innovation; (iii) procurement processes must avoid monopolies and minimize market disruption; and (iv) principles for procurement should be defined by all stakeholders. However, findings from the SLR were limited, with significant gaps on the impact of different tender models on supply risks, savings, and sustainability. Conclusions: A sustainable biosimilar market means that all stakeholders benefit from appropriate and reliable access to biological therapies. Failure to care for biosimilar market sustainability may impoverish biosimilar development and offerings, eventually leading to increased cost for health care systems and patients, with fewer resources for innovation.

Introduction: Capability-adjusted life years Sweden (CALY-SWE) are a new Swedish questionnaire-based measure for quality of life based on the capability approach. CALY-SWE are targeted towards use in cost-effectiveness evaluations of social welfare consequences. Here, we first motivate the measure both from a theoretical and from a Swedish policy-making perspective. Then, we outline the core principles of the measure, namely the relation to the capability approach, embedded equity considerations inspired by the fair-innings approach, and the bases for which capabilities should be considered. The aims were to 1) the most vital capabilities for individuals in Sweden, 2) to define a sufficient level of each identified capability to lead a flourishing life, and to 3) develop a complete questionnaire for the measurement of the identified capabilities. Material and methods: For the selection of capabilities, we used a Delphi process with Swedish civil society representants. To inform the questionnaire development, we conducted a web survey in three versions, with each Swedish 500 participants, to assess the distribution of capabilities that resulted from the Delphi process in the Swedish population. Each version was formulated with different strictness so that less strict wordings of a capability level would apply to a larger share of participants. All versions also included questions on inequality aversion regarding financial, educational, and health capabilities. Results: The Delphi process resulted in the following six capabilities: Financial situation & housing, health, social relations, occupations, security, and political & civil rights. We formulated the final phrasing for the questionnaire based on normative reasons and the distribution of capabilities in the population while taking into account inequality aversion. Conclusion: We developed a capability-based model for cost effectiveness economic evaluations of broader social consequences, specific to the Swedish context.

'Die Delphi-Methode ist ein vergleichsweise stark strukturierter Gruppenkommunikationsprozeß, in dessen Verlauf Sachverhalte, über die unsicheres und unvollständiges Wissen existiert, von Experten beurteilt werden. Die Delphi-Methode wird in den deutschen Sozialwissenschaften bislang kaum angewendet. Der Grund für diese Zurückhaltung dürfte u.a. in der vorhandenen Ungewißheit über die theoretischen Grundlagen und methodischen Prinzipien bei der Anwendung der Methode zu finden sein. Solche Vorbehalte können nur durch eine Evaluation der Delphi-Methode und durch empirische Tests abgebaut werden. Dies gilt sowohl für die Behebung des Theoriedefizits als auch für die methodologische Aufarbeitung. Daraufhin können sich u. E. spezifische Gebiete im Rahmen der sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung erschließen, für die der Einsatz von Delphi geeignet ist. Der Artikel wird zeigen, daß die Nutzung kognitionspsychologischer Erkenntnisse, insbesondere die Theorie mentaler Modelle, neue Möglichkeiten eröffnet, um einige wesentliche Aspekte der Funktionsweise von Delphi zu erklären. Anschließend werden die Ergebnisse eines Experiments zur empirischen Validierung unserer theoretischen Annahmen vorgestellt.' (Autorenreferat)

Energy transition debates have been characterized by a strong emphasis on the technical implications of shifting away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, with little consideration of social contexts. This is now changing, with a growing emphasis on reconfiguring the social aspects of energy, particularly in terms of introducing more democratic processes into behavior change and energy practice engagements. This article situates itself within these debates and demonstrates the transformative potential of combining participatory action research (PAR) approaches with a modified Delphi method for understanding energy transition issues, particularly beyond forecasting instruments. There remains a dearth in literature combining the Delphi method with PAR; its application in the field of energy transitions is very innovative. PAR draws from grassroots and local-based knowledge, Delphi panels typically focus on the insights from a panel of professional experts. In combining these two approaches, to develop principles for an inclusive and just energy transition, a reflexive form of dialogue emerges that gives voice to what are often considered dissonant or mismatched perspectives. Furthermore, the experimental use of a modified Delphi panel, combined with PAR, offers a strategy to promote knowledge sharing between different groups and to counter potential communication barriers among different actors in society. This article shows how a modified Delphi panel approach is considerably enhanced by combining elements of PAR, raising the potential of Delphi panels beyond forecasting instruments, which often seek to determine the way the future "will be," toward an envisioning tool that collaboratively seeks to explore the way a low-carbon system "could be," or perhaps "should be." The development of energy transition principles, endorsed through the modified Delphi panel, offers a concrete way to enact practices of energy justice within a more democratized energy system.

PurposeThis article seeks to present approaches on the utilisation of expert information in strategic planning practices.Design/methodology/approachThe article emphasises alternative scenario development for the bases of decision making. This is done through an evaluation of Delphi studies and their feasibility for scenario construction. As an application of the information processes, both narrow and broad expert information processes are presented as alternative sources for solutions in public sector strategic planning.FindingsBasically, there are two alternative ways to utilise Delphi studies in strategic planning and decision making: a broad expert information process (BEIP) model; and a narrow expert information process (NEIP) model.Practical implicationsAs a broad process, an example is presented of the alternative future outcomes and the argumentation around it in the share of genetically modified plant varieties in commercial farming in Finland.Originality/valueThis theoretical review contributes to the discussions of the linkages between the use of expert information, the scenario planning and the strategic planning processes.

The increasing number of international migrants (ranging from 153 million in 1990 to ∼272 million in 2019) brought to attention the wide variation of national contexts concerning the policy measures to protect migrants' rights and ensuring their equal access to basic and essential services, namely in health. Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) is a key component to the overall health and quality of life and is impacted by power inequities inherent to society's institutions, environment, economics, and culture. In Portugal, guidelines for intervention in SRH are insufficient, a gap that is more pronounced with migrant populations due to the absence of culturally sensitive indicators to assess and monitor SRH. The aim of this work was 2-fold: to identify good practices in the SRH field, with a particular focus, whenever possible, on migrant populations, and to identify relevant and inclusive indicators to monitor SRH in Portugal. A Delphi panel (via online survey) with 66 experts (researchers, teachers, and health professionals) and 16 stakeholders (non-governmental organizations, civil society, and governmental organizations) was implemented in two rounds. Panelists were asked to state their level of agreement (5-point Likert-type scale) regarding four different SRH areas: Sexual Health, Reproductive Health, Social-Structural Factors, and Good Practices. Items were based on literature review and a World Café with 15 experts and stakeholders. Participation rate was 68% and response rate was 97% on the first round. From the initial list of 142 items, a total of 118 (83%) items were approved by consensus. Findings may provide extended opportunities for the healthcare system to engage in better informed decisions and more inclusive and integrative strategies regarding SRH, contributing to build political measures toward sexual and reproductive justice. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion