Advertisement

Consensus Methods: Nominal Group Technique

  • Karine ManeraEmail author
  • Camilla S. Hanson
  • Talia Gutman
  • Allison Tong
Reference work entry

Abstract

Nominal group technique uses structured small group discussion to achieve consensus among participants and has been used for priority setting in healthcare and research. A facilitator asks participants to individually identify and contribute ideas to generate a list. The group discusses, elaborates, clarifies, and adds new ideas as appropriate. Each participant independently prioritizes the ideas, for example, by voting, rating, or ranking. The facilitator may summarize the scores to ascertain the overall group priorities. This method is useful for generating a diverse range of views and ideas in a structured manner, prevents participants from dominating the discussion, and promotes input from all members.

Keywords

Nominal group technique Consensus methods Focus group Ranking 

References

  1. Allen J, Dyas J, Jones M. Building consensus in health care: a guide to using the nominal group technique. Br J Community Nurs. 2004;9(3):110–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aspinal F, Hughes R, Dunckley M, Addington-Hall J. What is important to measure in the last months and weeks of life?: a modified nominal group study. Int J Nurs Stud. 2006;43(4):393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boers M, Kirwan J, Tugwell P, Beaton D, Bingham III C, Conaghan P, et al. The OMERACT handbook [online]. OMERACT. 2014.Google Scholar
  4. Bond CM, Watson MC. The development of evidence-based guidelines for over-the-counter treatment of vulvovaginal candidiasis. Pharm World Sci. 2003;25(4):177–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carney O, McIntosh J, Worth A. The use of the nominal group technique in research with community nurses. J Adv Nurs. 1996;23(5):1024–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapelle O, Metlzer D, Zhang Y, Grinspan P. Expected reciprocal rank for graded relevance. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Information and knowledge management. Hong Kong. 2009.Google Scholar
  7. Cho Y, Sautenet B, Rangan G, Craig JC, Ong ACM, Chapman A, et al. Standardised outcomes in nephrology—polycystic kidney disease (SONG-PKD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in polycystic kidney disease. Trials. 2017;18(1):560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Claxton JD, Ritchie JRB, Zaichkowsky J. The nominal group technique: its potential for consumer research. J Consum Res. 1980;7(3):308–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowan K, Oliver S. James Lind alliance guidebook (version 5). Southampton: James Lind Alliance; 2013.Google Scholar
  10. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman Company. Glenview, Illinois; 1975.Google Scholar
  11. Dening KH, Jones L, Sampson EL. Preferences for end-of-life care: a nominal group study of people with dementia and their family carers. Palliat Med. 2013;27(5):409–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewar A, White M, Posade ST, Dillon W. Using nominal group technique to assess chronic pain, patients’ perceived challenges and needs in a community health region. Health Expect. 2003;6(1):44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Elliott TR, Shewchuk RM. Using the nominal group technique to identify the problems experienced by persons living with severe physical disabilities. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2002;9(2):65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ghisoni M, Wilson CA, Morgan K, Edwards B, Simon N, Langley E, et al. Priority setting in research: user led mental health research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hiligsmann M, van Durme C, Geusens P, Dellaert BG, Dirksen CD, van der Weijden T, et al. Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2013;7:133–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Howell M, Tong A, Wong G, Craig JC, Howard K. Important outcomes for kidney transplant recipients: a nominal group and qualitative study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2012;60(2):186–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Howells LM, Chalmers JR, Cowdell F, Ratib S, Santer M, Thomas KS. ‘When it goes back to my normal I suppose’: a qualitative study using online focus groups to explore perceptions of ‘control’ among people with eczema and parents of children with eczema in the UK. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutchings H, Rapport FL, Wright S, Doel MA, Wainwright P. Obtaining consensus regarding patient-centred professionalism in community pharmacy: nominal group work activity with professionals, stakeholders and members of the public. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010;18(3):149–58.Google Scholar
  19. Hutchings H, Rapport F, Wright S, Doel M, Jones A. Obtaining consensus about patient-centred professionalism in community nursing: nominal group work activity with professionals and the public. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(11):2429–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(7001):376–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight SR, Metcalfe L, O’Donoghue K, Ball ST, Beale A, Beale W, et al. Defining priorities for future research: results of the UK kidney transplant priority setting partnership. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0162136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kramish Campbell M, Meier A, Carr C, Enga Z, James AS, Reedy J, et al. Health behavior changes after colon cancer: a comparison of findings from face-to-face and on-line focus groups. Fam Community Health. 2001;24(3):88–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lavigne M, Birken CS, Maguire JL, Straus S, Laupacis A. Priority setting in paediatric preventive care research. Arch Dis Child. 2017;102(8):748–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manera KE, Tong A, Craig JC, Brown EA, Brunier G, Dong J, et al. Standardized outcomes in nephrology-peritoneal dialysis (SONG-PD): study protocol for establishing a core outcome set in PD. Perit Dial Int. 2017;37(6):639–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Using the nominal group technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcome Res Methodol. 2014;14(3):92–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McMillan SS, Kelly F, Sav A, Kendall E, King MA, Whitty JA, et al. Consumers and carers versus pharmacy staff: do their priorities for Australian pharmacy services align? Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8(5):411–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):655–62.Google Scholar
  28. Miller D, Shewchuk R, Elliot TR, Richards S. Nominal group technique: a process for identifying diabetes self-care issues among patients and caregivers. Diabetes Educ. 2000;26(2):305–10. 12, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Potter M, Gordon S, Hamer P. The nominal group technique: a useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research. N Z J Physiother. 2004;32(2):70–5.Google Scholar
  30. Rees SE, Chadha R, Donovan LE, Guitard AL, Koppula S, Laupacis A, et al. Engaging patients and clinicians in establishing research priorities for gestational diabetes mellitus. Can J Diabetes. 2017;41(2):156–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rolls KD, Elliott D. Using consensus methods to develop clinical practice guidelines for intensive care: the intensive care collaborative project. Aust Crit Care. 2008;21(4):200–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rupert DJ, Poehlman JA, Hayes JJ, Ray SE, Moultrie RR. Virtual versus in-person focus groups: comparison of costs, recruitment, and participant logistics. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(3):e80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sanderson T, Morris M, Calnan M, Richards P, Hewlett S. Patient perspective of measuring treatment efficacy: the rheumatoid arthritis patient priorities for pharmacologic interventions outcomes. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62(5):647–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sav A, McMillan SS, Kelly F, King MA, Whitty JA, Kendall E, et al. The ideal healthcare: priorities of people with chronic conditions and their carers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SONG Initiative. The SONG handbook version 1.0. Sydney; 2017.Google Scholar
  36. Synnot A, Hill S, Summers M, Taylor M. Comparing face-to-face and online qualitative research with people with multiple sclerosis. Qual Health Res. 2014;24(3):431–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tates K, Zwaanswijk M, Otten R, van Dulmen S, Hoogerbrugge PM, Kamps WA, et al. Online focus groups as a tool to collect data in hard-to-include populations: examples from paediatric oncology. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thomas C, Wootten A, Robinson P. The experiences of gay and bisexual men diagnosed with prostate cancer: results from an online focus group. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2013;22(4):522–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Trickey H, Harvey I, Wilcock G, Sharp D. Formal consensus and consultation: a qualitative method for development of a guideline for dementia. Quality in Health Care : QHC. 1998;7(4):192–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Urquhart-Secord R, Craig JC, Hemmelgarn B, Tam-Tham H, Manns B, Howell M, et al. Patient and caregiver priorities for outcomes in hemodialysis: an international nominal group technique study. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;68(3):444–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vander Laenen F. Not just another focus group: making the case for the nominal group technique in criminology. Crime Science. 2015;4(1):5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Varga-Atkins T, McIsaac J, Willis I. Focus group meets nominal group technique: an effective combination for student evaluation? Innov Educ Teach Int. 2017;54(4):289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vella K, Goldfrad C, Rowan K, Bion J, Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ. 2000;320(7240):976–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams A, Sell D, Oulton K, Wilson N, Wray J, Gibson F. Identifying research priorities with nurses at a tertiary children’s hospital in the United Kingdom. Child Care Health Dev. 2017;43(2):211–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Woodyatt CR, Finneran CA, Stephenson R. In-person versus online focus group discussions: a comparative analysis of data quality. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(6):741–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. World Health Organization. WHO handbook for guideline development. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.Google Scholar
  47. Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM. The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ. 2011;343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karine Manera
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Camilla S. Hanson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Talia Gutman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Allison Tong
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Sydney School of Public HealthThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Kidney ResearchThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadWestmeadAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Kidney ResearchThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadWestmeadAustralia

Personalised recommendations