Application and modification of the Nominal Group Technique in the nursing field: a scoping review

Abstract

Background: Nominal Group Technique (NGT) has been widely used in health care and nursing to obtain structured consensus. However, its implementation and modification vary across studies, and the adaptation of modified NGT to different nursing scenarios remains unclear. Objective: This scoping review aimed to map the application scenarios, implementation processes, and modification types of NGT in the nursing field. Methods: Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and the PRISMA-ScR guideline, we searched ten Chinese and English databases from inception to April 20, 2026. Original studies that applied or modified NGT in nursing-related contexts were included. Data were charted and synthesized narratively according to application scenario, implementation process, and modification type. Results: Thirty-six studies were included. NGT was mainly applied in three nursing scenarios: evaluation, development, and coordination. Its implementation varied across pre-preparation, mid-term implementation, and post-anchoring stages, particularly in participant selection, facilitator arrangement, grouping, voting, feedback, and verification. Thirty studies reported explicit modifications of NGT. Seven types of modification were identified: process-iteration modification, technology-integration modification, quantitative-evaluation modification, expert-assistance modification, mixed-method modification, system-classification modification, and situation-adaptation modification. Cross-tabulation showed that modification types differed across application scenarios. Coordination studies mainly used technology-integration and quantitative-evaluation modifications, whereas no coordination study used situation-adaptation modification. Conclusions: Modified NGT has been flexibly applied in nursing research and practice. Future studies should report NGT procedures and modification details more transparently and select modification strategies according to research purpose, participant characteristics, implementation context, and consensus depth.