Home › Research › How common it is
Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research
Jorm AF.. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 2015-08-21
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective The article gives an introductory overview of the use of the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. It explains the rationale for using the method, examines the range of uses to which it has been put in mental health research, and describes the stages of carrying out a Delphi study using examples from the literature. Method To ascertain the range of uses, a systematic search was carried out in PubMed. The article also examines the implications of 'wisdom of crowds' research for how to conduct Delphi studies. Results The Delphi method is a systematic way of determining expert consensus that is useful for answering questions that are not amenable to experimental and epidemiological methods. The validity of the approach is supported by 'wisdom of crowds' research showing that groups can make good judgements under certain conditions. In mental health research, the Delphi method has been used for making estimations where there is incomplete evidence (e.g. What is the global prevalence of dementia?), making predictions (e.g. What types of interactions with a person who is suicidal will reduce their chance of suicide?), determining collective values (e.g. What areas of research should be given greatest priority?) and defining foundational concepts (e.g. How should we define 'relapse'?). A range of experts have been used in Delphi research, including clinicians, researchers, consumers and caregivers. Conclusion The Delphi method has a wide range of potential uses in mental health research.
Key findings
- Results The Delphi method is a systematic way of determining expert consensus that is useful for answering questions that are not amenable to experimental and epidemiological methods.
Why it matters
This article describes the Delphi method, a way of determining expert consensus, and notes it has been used for questions such as the global prevalence of dementia. It is about a research method and does not test any treatment, cure or prevention.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Alzheimer's in numbers →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 50/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry) |
| Journal's citation record | 2 / 4 | Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry: journal h-index 180 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29) |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | 6 / 7 | Cited 771 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10) |
| Citations per year | 5 / 5 | 59.3 citations a year over 13 year(s) since 2015 |
| Impact for its field and year | 6 / 6 | Cited 87.4× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI) |
| Cited by studies here | 1 / 6 | Cited by 2 other studies in this library |
| Still being cited | 4 / 4 | Cited 303 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex) |
| Senior author's track record | 4 / 4 | Last-listed author Anthony Francis Jorm: h-index 137 (OpenAlex, whole career) |
| Institution's track record | 1 / 3 | The University of Melbourne: institution h-index 1,342 (OpenAlex) |
| Multi-centre collaboration | 0 / 3 | OpenAlex lists 1 institution(s) in 1 country — scores zero (affiliation lists can be incomplete) |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 26296368) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Total | 50 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
- DOI: 10.1177/0004867415600891
- PubMed: 26296368
- Original source →
- Free full text: Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) →
Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
APA 7th
Jorm, A. F. (2015). Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415600891
Vancouver
Jorm AF. Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research. The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry. 2015. doi:10.1177/0004867415600891. PMID: 26296368.
BibTeX
@article{jorm2015-26296368,
author = {Jorm, A. F.},
title = {{Using the Delphi expert consensus method in mental health research}},
journal = {The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1177/0004867415600891},
pmid = {26296368},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867415600891}
}
Studies this one cites
Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.
Later studies that cite this one
2 studies in the alzhub library list this one in their references.
Related studies in How common it is
Also in How common it is
80 studies in the library are filed under How common it is with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The How common it is hub.