Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: Traditional Delphi studies rely predominantly on clinical experts, with limited inclusion of patient or caregiver representatives and advocates. This abstract presents a multi-panel eDelphi case study and evaluates its methodological value for improving inclusion of multistakeholder perspectives for evidence uncertainties in health economics and outcomes research.
METHODS: An eDelphi study conducted in hematology in China, applied two independent, parallel stakeholder panels: clinical experts and patient representatives/advocates. Across three survey rounds, each panel evaluated statements using 5- and 7-point Likert agreement or importance scales. Consensus was assessed independently within each panel. Statements achieving consensus were removed from subsequent rounds. Those not reaching consensus were re-evaluated alongside aggregated, anonymized results from the preceding round. Results were reported separately. A post-hoc methodological assessment examined the strengths and limitations of maintaining structured stakeholder-specific panels throughout the eDelphi process.
RESULTS: The multi-panel design enabled independent assessment of consensus within each stakeholder group while preserving the rigor of the eDelphi process. This allowed parallel identification of areas where consensus emerged and disagreement persisted across stakeholder groups. Comparative interpretation of panel-specific findings revealed convergence and divergence in priorities, unmet needs, and perceptions of burden and access. By preserving stakeholder perspectives as an independent source of evidence, consensus, and disagreement, the approach generated a more complete characterization of agreement. Areas of persistent non-consensus provided valuable insight into heterogeneous experiences and topics requiring further investigation or stakeholder engagement.
CONCLUSIONS: A multi-panel eDelphi design is a practical methodological adaptation for consensus research in HEOR. The approach enhances transparency in identifying agreement, disagreement, and evidence uncertainties. The patient panel provided a distinct experiential perspective that complemented clinical expertise, contributing critical context for understanding evidence gaps, unmet needs, and stakeholder-specific priorities. The methodology may be particularly valuable in HTA, value assessment, reimbursement, and market access decision-making.