Background: The Policy Delphi Technique is a policy analysis method used to engage groups of experts in dialogue regarding a particular issue of focus. The Policy Delphi approach entails a series of iterative, structured dialogues, with each one referred to as a ‘round’ and building on the one before. Respondents answer a series of questions anonymously, the responses are summarized and used as a basis for subsequent questions. Questions may be added as the questionnaires are developed. Policy Delphi has been used in disaster management since the 1970s; differing from the traditional Delphi approach, it does not seek consensus, but explores alternatives and their implications.
Objectives: The proposed policy Delphi would be conducted between May and November 2015 as a means of preparing for the proposed 2015 Evidence Aid meeting in the USA in November. The purpose of the policy Delphi is to engage a wide range of key stakeholders in dialogue regarding disaster responses, including for example, evidence for best practices in disaster response, approaches to improving investments in disaster response with Cochrane-style (systematic review) analysis of evidence, identification of gaps in the evidence base for disaster response; and factors that impact on effective disaster response.
Methods: Three rounds: the first and second online with around 100 selected panelists and the third being conducted as part of the meeting. The broad research questions are:
To what extent is evidence for best practices in disaster response available to a wide range of stakeholders?
To what extent is Cochrane-style (systematic review) analysis used to assess evidence for best practices in disaster response?
What are the most effective approaches to improving the cost-effectiveness of investments in disaster response?
How can the ethical, legal and social issues related to disaster response decision-making be most effectively addressed?
What are the factors that impact on effective disaster response decision-making?
Results & Conclusions: Each round has an interim report with findings. The findings and conclusions from these data will be shared at the Colloquium.