Guide for the Report
PHASE 2: DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY GUIDELINES Research Design
In this phase, consensus method, using the Delphi technique, was used. The consensus method aims to determine the extent to which experts or lay people agree about a given issue (Jones &
Hunter 1995, p.3 76). A Delphi technique as one of the three consensus methods has been chosen for this study. The Delphi technique involves questioning a panel of experts who are asked to complete a series of questionnaires focusing on their opinions and judgements
concerning a particular topic (Jones & Hunter, 1995, p 378; Polit & Hungler 1999, p.208). This process continues until consensus is reached (Polit & Hungler 1999, p.700).
The Delphi method aims to obtain the most reliable consensus of opinion from a group of experts, or appropriately experienced individuals, without bringing the individuals together in a meeting (Rowe & Wright 1999, p. 353). Since the researcher was aiming to involve experts from various parts of the country and abroad, the Delphi technique was appropriate, as this method has been suggested as advantageous in situations where input is needed from more individuals than can effectively meet face-to face, over distance and time (Linstone & Turrof
1975)
The researcher used a computer-based Delphi technique. This method has been applauded as having more advantages than a paper and pencil based method. One advantage for using a
- 100-
computer based Delphi technique is that whilst in the paper and pencil Delphi every contribution first goes to the coordinator of the exercise and then is integrated into a single summary provided to all participants, in a computer-based program this is not necessary (Turoff & Hiltz 1995, p. 61). Another advantage identified by these authors is that
communication in computer based Delphi is faster and less costly, and participants who are geographically distanced can be included. The first round of Delphi was conducted over the period of one month, to allow participants enough time to respond. According to Murphy et al (1998) two or more rating rounds are likely to result in some convergence of individual judgements.
Sampling
Identification of participants
The researcher searched for experts in the field of health promotion/wellness, occupational health and policy development from different databases, sectors, academic institutions, and industries. A list of potential participants was developed based on the identified names, and participants were purposively selected. The criteria for involving the participants in the study were that they should be interested in and knowledgeable about the topic. Participants had to be involved in the identified fields, either in conducting research (must have published some work on the topic), teaching or being actively employed in that field at the time of the study.
Sample size
Fifteen participants from different backgrounds were identified to participate in the study.
According to Rowe and Wright (1999, p.354), the sample size varies, and depends on the
- 1 0 1 -
research topic. Murphy et al (1998) suggested that in order to maximise areas of agreement, the group should be homogeneous, and to identify areas of uncertainty, a heterogeneous group is appropriate. In this group the participants will comprise individuals involved in promoting health in different settings.
Delphi Round 1
Data collection methods and instruments
Identified participants were contacted by e-mail. A covering letter explaining the objectives of the Delphi and conditions of participation was included in the e-mail. Participants were asked to respond and indicate their intentions to participate in the Delphi study or if they did not respond by given date the researcher would assume that they were not interested. In order to ensure that the identified participants received their e-mails, the e-mail message was set on automatic response such that a message was sent to the researcher once the recipient had opened and read the message. Identified participants were also given an option to sign a consent form and fax it back to the researcher if they could not e-mail back. Once the
participant had responded and indicated an intention to participate, a formulated questionnaire was e-mailed with a covering letter, giving instructions and deadlines to the participants.
The data collection instrument (Instrument 5) was an questionnaire that was formulated based on a reactive Delphi approach, whereby respondents were asked to respond to previously prepared information that addressed topics of concern (appendix 1). The information was based on the results of the first phase of the study, the research questions and the conceptual framework.
- 1 0 2 -
The instrument comprised mixed questions with both closed ended and open ended questions.
This type of questions would allow for open ended responses by experts (Burns & Grove 2005, p. 407). There questionnaire had five sections in which participants were requested to indicate their agreement or disagreement and to comment on the given statements. Section 1 focused on health promotion policies in the workplace. Participants were asked to give their views on the idea of having health promotion policies in the workplace. In this section participants were also asked if they felt that the type and size of organizations were important in determining the contents of such a policy. In Section 2 participants were asked to comment on issues relating to employee involvement and awareness of workplace health promotion programs and related policies. In Section 3 participants were asked to provide their views on what needed to be included in health promotion policies and programs. Section 4 requested participants' input on the view that health promotion programs should be designed based on the context, that is, employee characteristics and organizational characteristics. Section 5 explored health promotion models and approaches that were recommended for workplace health promotion programs.
Data Analysis
As soon as the researcher received responses from participants, data was screened and data synthesis was performed. From the obtained data, the researcher searched for categories and patterns that emerged from all responses. A standard correlation analysis approach was used during analysis. By using this method, the researcher determined if there were subgroups or patterns of agreement or disagreement that existed across different issues or judgements made in the Delphi exercise. The researcher then determined if these patterns were common among
- 1 0 3 -
different professionals and different sectors. Data analysis was based on research questions and new categories that emerged were also included.
Delphi Round 2
Round two was the final round of the Delphi. Study results from phase 1 and Round one of the Delphi were utilized to develop policy guidelines. The aim in this round was to feedback to the participants, allow participants to validate results from round one, indicate their level of
agreement or disagreement and rerank their initial scores. Participants were also expected to comment on and authenticate the developed policy guidelines.
Data collection methods and instrument
Participants in the first round of the Delphi were again contacted by e-mail. A covering letter explained the objectives of Round two of the Delphi and conditions of participation.
Participants were asked to indicate their intentions to participate in the Delphi study and informed that if they did not respond by the given date the researcher would assume that they were not interested. In this Round again, the e-mail message was set such that a message was sent to the researcher once the recipient had opened and read the message. Once the participant had responded and indicated an intention to participate, a formulated questionnaire was e- mailed with a covering letter giving instructions and deadlines to the participants.
The data collection instrument (instrument 6) comprised two sections, namely section A and B (appendix 1). Section A focused on the Round 1 Delphi findings. In this section participants were presented the summary of findings from Round 1. These findings were grouped under
- 104-