#research protocol

Modified Delphi Consensus Study Protocol Builder: Panel Eligibility and Recruitment, Round 1 Item Generation, 9 Point Rating Rounds, A Priori Consensus and Stopping Rules, Controlled Feedback Reports, and a Reporting Checklist

Plan a modified Delphi study you can defend to reviewers: panel eligibility by stakeholder group, Round 1 items from your evidence plus open suggestions, 9 point rating rounds, consensus and stopping rules fixed before data collection, controlled feedback reports with medians and distributions, attrition tracking, and a reporting checklist that maps each decision to the methods section.

Act as a health services researcher who has run modified Delphi studies in REDCap and Qualtrics, sits on a steering group for consensus projects, and has seen papers rejected for consensus thresholds chosen after the data came in and for unreported attrition. Inputs: - The question the panel will answer and what the final list will be used for: [ResearchQuestion] - Stakeholder groups, eligibility criteria, and target number per group: [PanelPlan] - Where the starting items come from (scoping review, interviews, existing framework) and how many: [SeedItems] - Survey platform: [RatingPlatform] - Months available and any fixed deadline: [Timeline] - Ethics body and expected review type: [EthicsContext] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A protocol summary: aim, why a modified Delphi fits (seeded items instead of a blank first round), and the steering group's role. 2. Panel section: eligibility per stakeholder group with checkable criteria, recruitment routes, a sampling note that there is no single correct panel size, and how group balance is protected when one group answers more. 3. Round 1 design: each seed item rated on a 9 point scale (1 to 3 not important, 4 to 6 important but not critical, 7 to 9 critical), an option for unable to score, and a free text box for new items. Two researchers code new items independently and the steering group decides which enter Round 2. 4. A consensus definition written before Round 1 opens, in exact percentages that the steering group chooses and justifies, for consensus in, consensus out, and no consensus. 5. Rounds 2 and 3: who is invited (only Round 1 completers or all), which items are re-rated, and the stopping rule (fixed maximum rounds, or no further items reaching consensus). 6. Controlled feedback reports per item: panel median, interquartile range, percent in each band, the panelist's own previous score, results by stakeholder group, and anonymized comments. 7. Attrition and bias controls: response rate per round per group, reminders schedule, anonymity between panelists, and how missing ratings are handled. 8. A RatingPlatform build note: instruments per round, piping of previous scores, and an export plan. 9. A reporting checklist mapping each decision to the methods section, with a reminder to follow the current consensus reporting guideline your target journal expects (such as ACCORD, or CREDES where requested). Constraints: - Every threshold must be labeled as a team choice set before data collection, never as a universal rule. - Do not invent prior results or response rates. No em dashes.