Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Health promotion and public health
Improving consensus-based evidence from Delphi studies with coproduced qualitative research
  1. Ding Ding1,2,
  2. Binh Nguyen1,2
  1. 1 Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 Charles Perkins Centre, the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ding Ding, The University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales 2050, Australia; melody.ding{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Commentary on: Monforte J, Davis C, Saleem S, Smith B. Moving on From the Delphi Study: The Development of a Physical Activity Training Programme Prototype Through Co-produced Qualitative Research. Qual Health Res. 2022 Nov;32(13):1952–1964. doi: 10.1177/10497323221126535. Epub 2022 Sep 14.

Implications for practice and research

  • Dialogical inquiry, which aims to facilitate people hearing themselves and others in collaborative and non-hierarchical settings, is compatible with the practice of coproduction.

  • A Delphi study alone may be insufficient for informing the design of educational programmes, curriculum or policy agenda. Additional follow-up qualitative interviews should be conducted to rectify, improve and expand on consensus-based knowledge.


Regular physical activity is critical to the health and well-being of people living with disabilities (PLWD).1 PLWD are often unable to be as active as they want due to various obstacles, such as a lack of safe and suitable environments, equipment, transportation and relevant information. Identifying and mobilising trusted physical activity information messengers …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.