June 16, 2026
Title: Delphi or Not Delphi: Selecting the Appropriate Expert Elicitation Approach
Tuesday, June 16, 2026
10:00AM EDT | 2:00PM UTC | 4:00PM CEST
Click here for time zone conversion
Registration Coming Soon!
Description
Structured expert elicitation (SEE) methodologies are increasingly gaining relevance in healthcare regulatory decision-making and health technology assessment (HTA) to address evidence gaps where empirical evidence is limited, uncertain, or unobtainable. Challenges with empirical evidence generation are especially common in situations where evidence must be extrapolated from small populations, short-term trials, or studies dependent on surrogate endpoints such as rare diseases, advanced therapy products, and precision medicine. While not replacing empirical evidence generation, in such contexts, eliciting judgments from subject matter experts using systematic, transparent, and repeatable quantitative methods can generate robust decision ready evidence to complement empirical evidence.
The reliability of SEE depends on rigorous expert selection, bias mitigation, and the design and implementation of a well-specified SEE protocol. As SEE approaches vary in structure and purpose, selecting the appropriate protocol requires careful consideration of the decision context as well as the time and resources available. As a result, many researchers remain uncertain about which approach is most appropriate/relevant for their specific situation.
The modified Delphi approach is widely used for expert elicitation because it involves a rigorous, iterative process that is flexible, well-recognized, and effective for structuring expert input across a range of decision-making contexts. However, while Delphi techniques are valuable for identifying consensus, alternative SEE methods may be better suited when diverse or uncertain expert judgments are more informative for characterizing evidence gaps, and to counter possible overinterpretation of consensus.
In this webinar, our speakers will explore several SEE approaches highlighting their strengths and limitations, including resource intensity, scalability, and methodological considerations, providing practical insights for regulators, HTA agencies, industry, and patient organizations seeking to embed structured stakeholder engagement into formal decision frameworks. In addition, we will showcase a recent pilot study undertaken in collaboration with the European Patients' Forum that employed a modified Delphi approach to elicit meaningful input from patients for PICO scoping (Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) providing patients with the opportunity to shape HTA scoping through a rigorous, iterative process that extends beyond traditional consultation.
Suggested reading to accompany and support this webinar.
Learning Objectives
- Attendees will recognize when, and how, to use expert elicitation in research to address evidence gaps in healthcare decision-making.
- Attendees will be able to describe how to design robust elicitation exercises, including expert selection, bias mitigation and translation of judgements into decision-ready quantitative evidence.
- Attendees will be able to compare and evaluate the strengths and limitations of Delphi and alternative SEE approaches to support selection of the most appropriate method for a given decision context
Moderator:
Elisabeth Fenwick, PhD, Chief Scientific Officer, OPEN Health, London, United Kingdom
Speakers:
Adele Barlassina, Associate Research Consultant, OPEN Health, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
Nick Denholm, BSc, MSc, Senior RWE Consultant, OPEN Health, London, United Kingdom
Sponsored by Corporate Partner, OPEN Health.
Please note: On the day of the scheduled webinar, the first 1000 registered participants will be accepted into the webinar. For those who are unable to attend, or would like to review the webinar at a later date, the full-length webinar recording will be made available at the ISPOR Educational Webinar Series webpage approximately 2 days after the scheduled Webinar. Reservations are on a first-come, first-served basis.