A Hutchings1, R Raine, C Sanderson, N Black. 1. Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK. andrew.hutchings@lshtm.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of design features and clinical and social cues on the extent of disagreement among participants in a formal consensus development process. METHODS: Factorial design involving 16 groups consisting of 135 general practitioners (GPs) and 42 mental health professionals from England. The groups rated the appropriateness of four mental health interventions for three conditions (chronic back pain, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome) in the context of various clinical and social cues. The groups differed in three design features: provision of a systematic literature review (versus not provided), group composition (mixed versus GP only), and assumptions about the healthcare resources available (realistic versus idealistic). Disagreement was measured using the mean absolute deviation from a group's median rating for a scenario. RESULTS: None of the design features significantly affected the extent of disagreement within groups (all p>0.3). Disagreement did differ between treatments (closer consensus for cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapy than for brief psychodynamic intervention therapy and antidepressants) and cues (closer consensus for depressed patients and patients willing to try any treatment). CONCLUSION: In terms of the extent of disagreement in the groups in this study, formal consensus development was a robust technique in that the results were not dependent on the way it was conducted.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of design features and clinical and social cues on the extent of disagreement among participants in a formal consensus development process. METHODS: Factorial design involving 16 groups consisting of 135 general practitioners (GPs) and 42 mental health professionals from England. The groups rated the appropriateness of four mental health interventions for three conditions (chronic back pain, irritable bowel syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome) in the context of various clinical and social cues. The groups differed in three design features: provision of a systematic literature review (versus not provided), group composition (mixed versus GP only), and assumptions about the healthcare resources available (realistic versus idealistic). Disagreement was measured using the mean absolute deviation from a group's median rating for a scenario. RESULTS: None of the design features significantly affected the extent of disagreement within groups (all p>0.3). Disagreement did differ between treatments (closer consensus for cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapy than for brief psychodynamic intervention therapy and antidepressants) and cues (closer consensus for depressedpatients and patients willing to try any treatment). CONCLUSION: In terms of the extent of disagreement in the groups in this study, formal consensus development was a robust technique in that the results were not dependent on the way it was conducted.
Authors: Rosalind Raine; Colin Sanderson; Andrew Hutchings; Simon Carter; Kirsten Larkin; Nick Black Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Jul 31-Aug 6 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: R E Park; A Fink; R H Brook; M R Chassin; K L Kahn; N J Merrick; J Kosecoff; D H Solomon Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1989-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Teryl K Nuckols; Yee-Wei Lim; Barbara O Wynn; Soeren Mattke; Catherine H MacLean; Philip Harber; Robert H Brook; Peggy Wallace; Rena H Garland; Steven Asch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-11-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rosalind Raine; Caoimhe Nic a' Bháird; Penny Xanthopoulou; Isla Wallace; David Ardron; Miriam Harris; Julie Barber; Archie Prentice; Simon Gibbs; Michael King; Jane M Blazeby; Susan Michie; Anne Lanceley; Alex Clarke; Gill Livingston Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Rachel M Taylor; Richard G Feltbower; Natasha Aslam; Rosalind Raine; Jeremy S Whelan; Faith Gibson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 2.692