The rise of consensus methods in paramedicine research: a bibliographic analysis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Introduction Consensus-based studies are increasingly common in paramedicine research. Whilst there are four main consensus methodologies, recent analyses in other disciplines describe great diversity in method characterised by frequent modifications. Aim To describe the application and characteristics of consensus research methodologies in paramedicine. Methods A bibliographic analysis was conducted of published research reporting use of a consensus methodology, drawing data from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL. Two researchers performed abstract screening, full text review, and data extraction. A descriptive analysis was conducted. Results There were 161 paramedicine consensus studies published between 1997 and 2024. Delphi technique was most frequent (83 %), followed by NGT (12 %). The US accounted for the most studies with 44 (26 %), followed by UK with 33 (20 %), Canada 15 (9 %), Norway 12 (7 %) and Australia 12 (7 %). Modifications were reported by authors in 54 % of studies. Of 141 Delphi studies, 31 % demonstrated the use of published reporting or methodological guidance. Conclusion The prevalence of consensus research has increased considerably, dominated by Delphi methodology. Significant methodological heterogeneity was observed, and engagement with methodological and reporting guidelines appeared uncommon. There may be a need for stronger methodological guidance within the paramedicine research space to ensure quality in consensus research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)322-327
Number of pages6
JournalAustralasian Emergency Care
Volume28
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Authors.

Keywords

  • Consensus
  • Delphi
  • Methods
  • Paramedicine
  • Paramedics
  • Quality
  • Research

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The rise of consensus methods in paramedicine research: a bibliographic analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this