Delphi Analysis & Final Report
Comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis transformed into a professionally written report with consensus findings, round-to-round interpretation, participation analysis, qualitative themes, publication-ready visuals, and methodological documentation.
From Surveylet results to a professional final deliverable
Standard Surveylet exports provide the underlying study data. The Delphi Analysis & Final Report service goes further by integrating the quantitative findings, panelist comments, round-to-round patterns, participation, methodology, and study context into a clear report suitable for stakeholder communication and publication planning.
What may be included
Executive Summary
- Concise study overview and major findings
- Key consensus, disagreement, and uncertainty
- Important implications for stakeholders
Consensus Analysis
- Items meeting the predefined consensus threshold
- Separate results for clarity, importance, feasibility, validity, appropriateness, or other required dimensions
- Near-consensus, unresolved, and non-consensus findings
- Interpretation of agreement, disagreement, dispersion, and stable polarization
Round-to-Round Findings
- Changes in ratings and agreement
- Response movement, stability, and revision patterns
- Items that converged, stayed divided, or changed direction
Participation, Representation & Attrition
- Screened, eligible, invited, started, and completed participants
- Panel retention, attrition, and changing composition by round
- Stakeholder-group representation and denominators where appropriate
- Overall consensus with material subgroup differences when supported by the design
Qualitative Thematic Analysis
- Systematic review of open-text feedback
- Recurring themes, concerns, and proposed revisions
- Integration of qualitative and quantitative findings
Publication-Ready Tables & Figures
- Professionally prepared consensus tables and charts
- Visual comparison of rounds, items, domains, rating dimensions, or stakeholder groups
- Participant-flow and item-flow figures when supported by the study record
- Figures for presentations or manuscript development
Methodological Documentation
- Panel eligibility, screening, composition, stakeholder groups, and survey procedures
- Rating dimensions, consensus criteria, feedback, item decisions, stopping logic, and analysis approach
- Bias safeguards, protocol deviations, representation gaps, limitations, and reporting considerations
- Questionnaire, round history, data dictionary, or anonymized supporting-data package when appropriate and included in scope
Manuscript-Support Language
- Methods and results language suitable for manuscript preparation
- Reporting terminology aligned with the study design
- Structured descriptions of consensus and unresolved findings
Conclusions & Recommendations
- Strategic interpretation of the findings
- Distinct context-dependent positions when one combined conclusion would be misleading
- Research, reporting, or implementation considerations
- Recommendations tailored to the intended audience
Ideal for
- Peer-reviewed publication preparation
- Steering committee and stakeholder presentations
- Final grant or project documentation
- Clinical, policy, academic, and organizational consensus initiatives
- Studies requiring interpretation beyond standard data exports
Every report is tailored to the study
Not every project requires every analysis listed above. The final scope is selected based on the survey design, study questions, available response-history data, open-text volume, panel composition, consensus methodology, and intended audience.
Make the report useful for its intended audience
Research team or steering committee
Explain which items met the criteria, where uncertainty remains, and how panel composition or changes across rounds affect interpretation.
Clinical or stakeholder panel
Present clear item-level findings and relevant group differences. Preserve dissent and qualifications that may matter when applying the findings.
Publication team
Agree on methods documentation, tables, figures, and supporting records. Discuss reporting guidance appropriate to the design, such as CREDES, ACCORD, or COS-STAR.
Manuscript revision, additional statistical work, and reviewer-response assistance are available through separately scoped publication support. Your investigators approve the scientific interpretation.
Typical reporting workflow
Reporting begins with decisions made before launch
The strongest final reports are supported by predefined panel criteria, rating dimensions, consensus rules, feedback plans, subgroup definitions, item and stopping rules, and clear round-by-round documentation. Use our checklist to review what should be planned and retained for analysis.
Agree a publication-oriented reporting scope
A reporting proposal can specify item-level consensus tables with valid-response denominators, distributions and unresolved findings; participation and attrition by round; item revisions and decision records; and methods documentation for the investigator team.
Subgroup comparisons, anonymized comment themes, and comparisons between rounds depend on the available data, approved protocol, confidentiality requirements, and agreed scope. Investigators review the interpretation and approve the final scientific conclusions.
ACCORD supports transparent reporting of consensus methods in biomedicine. CREDES was developed for Delphi studies in palliative care; consider its relevance to your study context. These resources guide reporting and do not certify software or guarantee study quality.
Surveylet provides round snapshots and exports to preserve results throughout the study. Define the comparisons, stability measures, and reporting outputs required by your protocol when planning the analysis.
See what a meaningful comparison between rounds should include →
Need more than standard data extracts?
Ask Calibrum about a Delphi Analysis & Final Report tailored to your study, reporting goals, and intended audience.