Author:
Roberts V,Carter Patrice,Barnett P,Mugglestone MA,Pilling S
Abstract
Abstract
Background
This feasibility study has the primary aim of capturing and comparing participant expectations and experiences of using a formal consensus method (FCM) and to explore whether these views change following participation within a guideline committee where FCM are used.
Methods
Twelve healthcare committee members and associated technical team members participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews before and after using FCM during guideline committee meetings. Interviews also focused on past experiences and expectations of informal consensus methods.
Results
Participants said formal consensus included a greater range of evidence. They described positive reactions and found it a useful way to encourage involvement by balancing group power dynamics. Group discussion time was identified as important to clarify ideas, supported by good group chairing. However, participants reported that undertaking FCM required additional resources and suggested targeting its use for low quality evidence, limited committee expertise, or where the evidence is controversial.
Conclusions
FCM is an acceptable alternative to informal consensus methods that has qualities specifically helpful to healthcare guidelines such as encouraging participation, inclusivity of a broad range of evidence, and managing group dynamics. More research is required to better understand when using formal consensus is most appropriate and effective.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Informatics,Health Policy,Computer Science Applications
Reference26 articles.
1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing the NICE guidelines: the manual. 2014. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction.
2. Larson JR, Christensen C, Franz TM, et al. Diagnosing groups: the pooling, management, and impact of shared and unshared case information in team-based medical decision making. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1998;75(1):93–108.
3. Wittenbaum GM, Hubbell AP, Zuckerman C. Mutual enhancement: toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. J Personal Soc Psychol. 1999;77(5):967–78.
4. Cramer RJ, Brodsky SL, DeCoster J. Expert witness confidence and juror personality: their impact on credibility and persuasion in the courtroom. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2009;37(1):63–74.
5. Neal TM, Guadagno RE, Eno CA, et al. Warmth and competence on the witness stand: implications for the credibility of male and female expert witnesses. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2012;40(4):488–97.