Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:09:50.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Format and Conduct of Consensus Development Conferences

Multination Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Elizabeth A. McGlynn ,
Jacqueline Kosecoff  and
Robert H. Brook
Elizabeth A. McGlynn
Affiliation:
The RAND Corporation
Jacqueline Kosecoff
Affiliation:
Value Health Sciences, Inc.
Robert H. Brook
Affiliation:
UCLA Schools of Medicine and Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The consensus development conference method developed by the National Institutes of Health in the United States has been adopted and modified by a number of countries. Based on published articles and communication with representatives from each country, we examined whether the organization and conduct of these conferences in nine countries (United States, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) enhanced or detracted from achieving the stated conference goals and objectives. We conclude that improvements in the process by which consensus conferences are conducted may be warranted. More scientific methods for synthesizing literature, such as meta-analysis, should be used in developing inputs for the conference panel. Formalizing the decision-making processes through polling or other methods that allow for structured disagreement with parts of a consensus statement would potentially expand the range and type of issues that can be addressed in such conferences. Finally, countries should consider having the consensus statement written over a longer period of time than the traditional overnight session, which seems unlikely to promote clear thinking.

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , April 1990 , pp. 450 - 469
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Andreasen, P. B.Consensus conferences in different countries, aims and perspectives. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 305–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Battista, R. N., & Fletcher, S. W.Making recommendations on preventive practices: Methodological issues. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,1988, 4(Suppl.), 53–67.Google ScholarPubMed
3Calltorp, J.Consensus development conferences in Sweden: Effects on health policy and administration. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 75–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Casparie, A. F., & van, Everdingen J. J. E.Consensus Development Conferences in the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 905–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5Chassin, M. R. et al. , Does inappropriate use explain geographic variation in the use of health care services? A study of three procedures. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 258, 2533–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6Fink, A., & Kosecoff, J. et al. ,, Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use. The American Journal of Public Health, 1984, 74, 979–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Jacoby, I.The Consensus development program of the National Institutes of Health: Current practices and historical perspectives. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 420–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8Jacoby, I.Evidence and consensus. Journal of The American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 309.Google ScholarPubMed
9Jennett, B.First consensus development conference in United Kingdom: On coronary artery bypass grafting, Commentary by the Chairman of the Conference. British Medical Journal, 1985, 291, 716–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Johnsson, M.Evaluation of the consensus conference program in Sweden: Its impact on physicians. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 89–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Kanouse, D. et al. , Changing medical practice through technology assessment: An evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1989.Google Scholar
12Klazinga, N. S., Casparie, A. F., & van, Everdingen J. J. E.Contribution of medical decision- making to consensus development conferences. Health Policy, 1987, 8, 339–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Kosecoff, J. et al. , Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1987, 2708–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14Lomas, J. et al. , The role of evidence in the consensus process, Results from a Canadian consensus exercise. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 3001–05.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Office of Medical Applications of Research, NIH. Guidelines for the selection and management of consensus development conferences. Bethesda, MD: OTA, 1988.Google Scholar
16Park, R. E. et al. , Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. American Journal of Public Health, 1986, 76, 766–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Perry, S.The NIH Consensus Development Program a decade later. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 317, 485–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18Perry, S.Consensus development: An historical note. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1988, 4, 481–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19Stocking, B.First consensus development conference in United Kingdom: Oncoronary artery bypass grafting, Views of audience, panel, and speakers. British MedicalJjournal, 1985, 291, 713–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20Vang, J.The consensus development conference and the European experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1986, 2, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Wortman, P. M., Vinokur, A., & Sechrest, L.Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 1986, 13, 469–98Google Scholar