Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 92–108 | Cite as

Using the Nominal Group Technique: how to analyse across multiple groups

  • Sara S. McMillan
  • Fiona Kelly
  • Adem Sav
  • Elizabeth Kendall
  • Michelle A. King
  • Jennifer A. Whitty
  • Amanda J. Wheeler
Article

Abstract

The nominal group technique (NGT) is a method to elicit healthcare priorities. Yet, there is variability on how to conduct the NGT, and limited guidance on how to analyse a diverse sample of multiple groups. This paper addresses some of this ambiguity, and explores whether different approaches to analysis provide the same outcome/s. Conceptual papers and empirical studies were identified via PubMed and informed an adapted version of the NGT. Twenty-six nominal groups were conducted, which provided in-depth knowledge on how to best conduct this method. Pilot group data were used to compare different analysis methods and to explore how this impacted on reported outcomes. Data analyses for large data-sets are complex; thematic analysis is needed to be able to conduct across group comparisons of participant priorities. Consideration should be given not just to the strength, i.e. sum of votes, or relative importance of the priority, but to the voting frequency, i.e. the popularity of the idea amongst participants; our case study demonstrated that this can affect priority rankings for those ideas with the same score. As a case study, this paper provides practical information on analysis for complex data sets. Researchers need to consider more than one analysis process to ensure that the results truly reflect participant priorities. A priority that has a high score may not necessarily reflect its popularity within the group; the voting frequency may also need to be considered.

Keywords

Nominal group Analysis Case study Priorities 

Supplementary material

10742_2014_121_MOESM1_ESM.doc (82 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 83 kb)

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. 9(3), 110–114 (2004)CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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. 43(4), 393–403 (2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartunek, J.M., Murninghan, J.K.: The Nominal Group Technique: expanding the basic procedure and underlying assumptions. Group Organ. Manag. 9(3), 417–432 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bissell, P., Ward, P.R., Noyce, P.R.: Appropriateness measurement: application to advice-giving in community pharmacies. Soc. Sci. Med. 51(3), 343–359 (2000)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cantrill, J.A., Sibbald, B., Buetow, S.: The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. Int. J. Pharm. Pract. 4(2), 67–74 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carney, O., McIntosh, J., Worth, A.: The use of the Nominal Group Technique in research with community nurses. J. Adv. Nurs. 23(5), 1024–1029 (1996)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Claxton, J.D., Ritchie, J.R.B., Zaichkowsky, J.: The Nominal Group Technique: its potential for consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 7, 308–313 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., Gustafson, D.: Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview (1975)Google Scholar
  9. Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H.: A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 7(4), 466–492 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dening, K.H., Jones, L., Sampson, E.L.: Preferences for end-of-life care: a nominal group study of people with dementia and their family carers. Palliat. Med. 27(5), 409–417 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewar, A., White, M., Posade, S.T., Dillon, W.: Using nominal group technique to assess chronic pain, patients’ perceived challenges and needs in a community health region. Health Expect. 6(1), 44–52 (2003)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Drennan, V., Walters, K., Lenihan, P., Cohen, S., Myerson, S., Iliffe, S., Group, S.R.: Priorities in identifying unmet need in older people attending general practice: a nominal group technique study. Fam. Pract. 24(5), 454–460 (2007)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallagher, M., Hares, T., Spencer, J., Bradshaw, C., Webb, I.: The nominal group technique: a research tool for general practice? Fam. Pract. 10(1), 76–81 (1993)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gastelurrutia, M.A., Benrimoj, S.I., Castrillon, C.C., de Amezua, M.J., Fernandez-Llimos, F., Faus, M.J.: Facilitators for practice change in Spanish community pharmacy. Pharm. World Sci. 31(1), 32–39 (2009)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzales, C.K., Leroy, G.: Eliciting used requirements using appreciative inquiry. Empir. Softw. Eng. 16, 733–772 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey, N., Holmes, C.A.: Nominal group technique: an effective method for obtaining group consensus. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 18(2), 188–194 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hiligsmann, M., van Durme, C., Geusens, P., Dellaert, B.G., Dirksen, C.D., van der Weijden, T., Reginster, J.Y., Boonen, A.: Nominal group technique to select attributes for discrete choice experiments: an example for drug treatment choice in osteoporosis. Patient Prefer. Adherence. 7, 133–139 (2013)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hutchings, A., Raine, R.: A systematic review of factors affecting the judgments produced by formal consensus development methods in health care. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy. 11(3), 172–179H (2006)CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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. 68(11), 2429–2442 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutchings, H.A., Rapport, F.L., Wright, S., Doel, M.A., 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. 18(3), 149–158 (2010)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, J., Hunter, D.: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311(7001), 376–380 (1995)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kristofco, R., Shewchuk, R., Casebeer, L., Bellande, B., Bennett, N.: Attributes of an ideal continuing medical education institution identified through nominal group technique. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 25(3), 221–228 (2005)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. McMillan, S.S., Kelly, F., Sav, A., King, M., Whitty, J., Wheeler, A.: Consumer and carer views of Australian community pharmacy practice: awareness, experiences and expectations. J. Pharm. Health Serv. Res. 5(1), 29–36 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, D., Shewchuk, R., Elliot, T.R., Richards, S.: Nominal group technique: a process for identifying diabetes self-care issues among patients and caregivers. Diabetes Educ. 26(2), 305–310 (2000)., 312, 314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Naik-Panvelkar, P., Armour, C., Saini, B.: Discrete choice experiments in pharmacy: a review of the literature. Int. J. Pharm. Pract. 21(1), 3–19 (2013)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Potter, M., Gordon, S., Hamer, P.: The physiotherapy experience in private practice: the patients’ perspective. Aust. J. Physiother. 49(3), 195–202 (2003)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Potter, M., Gordon, S., Hamer, P.: The Nominal Group Technique: a useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research. N. Z. J. Physiother. 32, 126–130 (2004)Google Scholar
  28. Ryan, M., Scott, D.A., Reeves, C., Bate, A., van Teijlingen, E.R., Russell, E.M., Napper, M., Robb, C.M.: Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5(5), 1–186 (2001)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sanderson, T., Hewlett, S., Richards, P., Morris, M., Calnan, M.: Utilizing qualitative data from nominal groups: exploring the influences on treatment outcome prioritization with rheumatoid arthritis patients. J. Health Psychol. 17(1), 132–142 (2012)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Sink, D.S.: Using the Nominal Group Technique effectively. Natl. product. rev. 2(2), 173–184 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tuffrey-Wijne, I., Bernal, J., Butler, G., Hollins, S., Curfs, L.: Using Nominal Group Technique to investigate the views of people with intellectual disabilities on end-of-life care provision. J. Adv. Nurs. 58(1), 80–89 (2007)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Tully, M.P., Cantrill, J.A.: Exploring the domains of appropriateness of drug therapy, using the Nominal Group Technique. Pharm. World Sci. 24(4), 128–131 (2002)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Van Breda, A.D.: Steps to analysing multiple-group NGT data. Soc. Work Pract. Res. 17(1), 1–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. Vella, K., Goldfrad, C., Rowan, K., Bion, J., Black, N.: Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ 320(7240), 976–980 (2000)PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara S. McMillan
    • 5
  • Fiona Kelly
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adem Sav
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Kendall
    • 1
  • Michelle A. King
    • 3
  • Jennifer A. Whitty
    • 1
    • 4
  • Amanda J. Wheeler
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Griffith Health InstituteGriffith University, University DriveMeadowbrookAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, School of PharmacyUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of Pharmacy, Griffith Health InstituteGriffith UniversitySouthportAustralia
  4. 4.School of PharmacyUniversity of QueenslandWooloongabbaAustralia
  5. 5.Griffith Health Institute, School of Human Services and Social WorkGriffith University, University DriveMeadowbrookAustralia

Personalised recommendations