Good practice for guidance development – review of consensus methods

Jacek Siwiec; Magdalena  Konieczna; Magdalena  Koperny

Tytuły

Abstrakt

Introduction. The process of synthesizing scientific evidence and translating elaborate scientific research findings into recommendations for clinical practice is one of the most complex and significant initiatives in health care. In connection with the increasing number of recommendations, previously unformalised elements such as the process of consensus decision-making require developing a methodological approach. The use of consensus methods serves to reduce the impact of psychosocial factors in the formulation of recommendations and to increase the degree of process transparency. The aim of the publication is to present formal methods of achieving consensus used in the process of developing clinical practice guidelines.

Materials and methods. The review focuses on results of reports analyzing the procedure and methods of developing clinical recommendations, with particular emphasis on the identification of consensus methods.

Results. Many international and national organizations and institutions develop recommendations or adapt guidelines developed by others. They use both informal and formal instruments to deal with divergent expert opinions. The most popular formal methods of achieving consensus identified in the review are the Delphi method, the nominal group technique, the RAND/UCLA method, the consensus conference, and the combinations of individual approaches. Formal methods have been shown to lead to less biased and more reliable recommendations. Regardless of the method used, the guidelines should clearly define the quorum and document the process of agreeing a common standpoint on recommendations, guidelines and recommendations.

Conclusions. Clinical guidelines have become an important tool influencing clinical practice. The participation of many experts representing the opinions and interests of different groups makes it necessary to apply a methodological and structured approach so that all participants have the opportunity to voice their opinion and to ensure process transparency, deal with misunderstandings and achieve a consensual position. The consensus methods allow to provide a wide range of stakeholders clinicians, policy makers, patients – with agreed rules of conduct in a given topic. The formal consensus methods and recommendations based on these methods combine scientific evidence with the practice and experience of experts.

* Przygotowanie do wydania elektronicznego finansowane w ramach umowy 637/P-DUN/2019 ze środków Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę.

Introduction. The process of synthesizing scientific evidence and translating elaborate scientific research findings into recommendations for clinical practice is one of the most complex and significant initiatives in health care. In connection with the increasing number of recommendations, previously unformalised elements such as the process of consensus decision-making require developing a methodological approach. The use of consensus methods serves to reduce the impact of psychosocial factors in the formulation of recommendations and to increase the degree of process transparency. The aim of the publication is to present formal methods of achieving consensus used in the process of developing clinical practice guidelines.

Materials and methods. The review focuses on results of reports analyzing the procedure and methods of developing clinical recommendations, with particular emphasis on the identification of consensus methods.

Results. Many international and national organizations and institutions develop recommendations or adapt guidelines developed by others. They use both informal and formal instruments to deal with divergent expert opinions. The most popular formal methods of achieving consensus identified in the review are the Delphi method, the nominal group technique, the RAND/UCLA method, the consensus conference, and the combinations of individual approaches. Formal methods have been shown to lead to less biased and more reliable recommendations. Regardless of the method used, the guidelines should clearly define the quorum and document the process of agreeing a common standpoint on recommendations, guidelines and recommendations.

Conclusions. Clinical guidelines have become an important tool influencing clinical practice. The participation of many experts representing the opinions and interests of different groups makes it necessary to apply a methodological and structured approach so that all participants have the opportunity to voice their opinion and to ensure process transparency, deal with misunderstandings and achieve a consensual position. The consensus methods allow to provide a wide range of stakeholders clinicians, policy makers, patients – with agreed rules of conduct in a given topic. The formal consensus methods and recommendations based on these methods combine scientific evidence with the practice and experience of experts.

Słowa kluczowe

wytyczne praktyki klinicznej, standardy, rekomendacje, metody formalnego konsensusu / clinical practice guidelines, standards, recommendations, formal consensus methods

clinical practice guidelines, standards, recommendations, formal consensus methods

Bibliografia

1. Woolf S., Schünemann H.J., Eccles M.P., Grimshaw J.M., Shekelle P., Developing clinical practice guidelines: Types of evidence and outcomes; values and economics, synthesis, grading, and presentation and deriving recommendations, “Implementation Science” 2012; 7 (1): 61.

2. Institute of Medicine (US). Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Graham R., Mancher M., Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, National Academies Press, Washington, DC 2011.

3. Field M.J., Lohr K.N. (eds.), Clinical practice guidelines: Directions for a new program, National Academies Press, Washington, 1990.

4. Jacobs C., Graham I.D., Makarski J., Chasse M., Fergusson D., Hutton B., Clemons M., Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements in oncology – an assessment of their methodological quality, “PLoS One” 2014; 9 (10): e110469.

5. Guyatt G., Oxman A.D., Akl E.A., Kunz R., Vist G., Brozek J.,... Rind D., GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction ‒ GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables, “Journal of Clinical Epidemiology” 2011; 64 (4): 383‒394.

6. Leśniak W., Bała M., Jaeschke R., Brożek J.L., Od danych naukowych do praktycznych zaleceń – tworzenie wytycznych według metodologii GRADE, “Polish Archives of Internal Medicine” 2015; 125: 26‒41.

7. Qaseem A., Forland F., Macbeth F., Ollenschläger G., Phillips S., van der Wees P., Guidelines International Network: Toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines, “Annals of Internal Medicine” 2012; 156 (7): 525‒531.

8. Hutchings A., Raine R., A systematic review of factors affecting the judgments produced by formal consensus development methods in health care, “Journal of Health Services Research & Policy” 2006; 11 (3): 172‒179H.

9. Murphy E., Dingwall R., Greatbatch D., Parker S., Watson P., Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature, “Health Technology Assessment” 1998; 2 (16): iii‒ix, 1‒274.

10. Shekelle P.G., Schriger D.L., Evaluating the use of the appropriateness method in the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Clinical Practice Guideline Development process, “Health Services Research” 1996; 31 (4): 453.

11. Jaeschke R., Guyatt G.H., Dellinger P., Schünemann H., Levy M.M., Kunz R.,...Bion J., Use of GRADE grid to reach decisions on clinical practice guidelines when consensus is elusive, “BMJ” 2008; 337: a744.

12. Moyano M.S., Rivera J.L., Materiality Analysis of Health Plans Based on Stakeholder Engagement and the Issues Included at ISO 26000: 2010, “Revista Espanola de Salud Publica” 2017; 91.

13. Santric-Milicevic M., Terzic Z., Markovic G., Filipovic J., Social responsibility in health system: An approach to assess ISO 26000 application in Serbia Milena Santric-Milicevic, “European Journal of Public Health” 2013; 23 (suppl. 1).

14. Kumakawa T., Social responsibility in healthcare system: ISO 26000 and socially responsible investment, “Journal of the National Institute of Public Health” 2009; 58 (3): 283‒293.

15. Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny, Norma I.S.O. 26000: 2010, Warszawa 2010.

16. Norma Międzynarodowa dotycząca społecznej odpowiedzialności. Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny 2013, https://www.pkn.pl/informacje/2013/09/iso-26000 (accessed: 20.06.2019).

17. Jastrzębska E., Angażowanie interesariuszy jako istota społecznej odpowiedzialności według ISO 26000. 2016, https://depot.ceon.pl/handle/123456789/13165 (accessed: 6.06.2019).

18. Massoni F., Ricci P., Ricci S., Guidelines and evidence based medicine. The importance of stakeholder involvement, “Reviews in Health Care” 2014; 5 (3): 109‒115.

19. Shekelle P.G., Woolf S.H., Eccles M., Grimshaw J., Developing guidelines, “BMJ” 1999; 318 (7183): 593‒596.

20. Schmeer K., Stakeholder Analysis Guidelines. Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reform, WHO, Regional Office of the World Health Organisation, Washington, 1999: 1‒33.

21. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, How NICE clinical guidelines are developed: An overview for stakeholders, the public and the NHS. 2009, July, 20, 2014.

22. Ahmad R., Kyratsis Y., Holmes A., When the user is not the chooser: Learning from stakeholder involvement in technology adoption decisions in infection control, “Journal of Hospital Infection” 2012; 81 (3): 163‒168.

23. Kahan J.P., Park R.E., Leape L.L., Bernstein S.J., Hilborne L.H., Parker L.,... Brook R.H., Variations by specialty in physician ratings of the appropriateness and necessity of indications for procedures, “Medical Care” 1996; 34: 512‒523.

24. Coulter I., Adams A., Shekelle P., Impact of varying panel membership on ratings of appropriateness in consensus panels: A comparison of a multi-and single disciplinary panel, “Health Services Research” 1995; 30 (4): 577.

25. Leape L.L., Park R.E., Kahan J.P., Brook R.H., Group judgments of appropriateness: The effect of panel composition, “International Journal for Quality in Health Care” 1992; 4 (2): 151‒159.

26. Pagliari C., Grimshaw J., Eccles M., The potential influence of small group processes on guideline development, “Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice” 2001; 7 (2): 165‒173.

27. Moscovici S., Social Influence and Social Change, European Monographs in Social Psychology, Vol. 10, Academic Press, London 1976.

28. Wesołowska E., Polaryzacja grupowa w warunkach debaty deliberatywnej, “Civitas et Lex” 2014; 2: 19‒30.

29. Janis I.L., Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin, Oxford, England 1972.

30. Ellemers N., Wilke H., Van Knippenberg, A., Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies, “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology” 1993; 64 (5): 766.

31. Eccles M., Clapp Z., Grimshaw J., Adams P.C., Higgins B., Purves I., Russell I., North of England evidence based guidelines development project: Methods of guideline development, “BMJ” 1996; 312 (7033): 760‒762.

32. Humphrey-Murto S., Varpio L., Gonsalves C., Wood T.J., Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research, “Medical Teacher” 2017; 39 (1): 14‒19.

33. Delphi method, https://www.rand.org/topics/delphi-method. html (accessed: 20.04.2019).

34. Wood F., Bloor M., Keywords in Qualitative Methods: A Vocabulary of Research Concepts, Sage Publications, London 2006.

35. Linstone H.A., Turoff M., The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, 2002, https://web.njit.edu/~turoff/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf (accessed: 20.04.2019).

36. Murphy M.K., Black N.A., Lamping D.L. et al., Consensus development methods and their use in clinical guideline development, “Health Technology Assessment” 1998; 2: 1–88.

37. Cantrill J.A., Sibbald B., Buetow S., The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research, “International Journal of Pharmacy Practice” 1996; 4 (2): 67‒74.

38. Waggoner J., Carline J.D., Durning S.J., Is there a consensus on consensus methodology? Descriptions and recommendations for future consensus research, “Academic Medicine” 2016; 91 (5): 66‒668.

39. Avella J.R., Delphi panels: Research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges, “International Journal of Doctoral Studies” 2016; 11 (1): 305‒321.

40. Fitch K., Bernstein S.J., Aguilar M.D., Burnand B., La-Calle J.R., The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user’s manual (No. RAND/MR-1269-DG-XII/RE), Rand Corp., Santa Monica Ca 2011.

41. Njuangang S., Liyanage C., Akintoye A., Application of the Delphi technique in healthcare maintenance, “International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance” 2017; 30 (8): 737‒754.

42. Fink A., Kosecoff J., Chassin M., Brook R.H., Consensus methods: Characteristics and guidelines for use, “American Journal of Public Health” 1984; 74 (9): 979‒983.

43. Sudoł S., Delficka metoda badawcza, “Zarządzanie. Teoria i Praktyka” 2016; 17 (3): 69‒74.

44. McKenna H.P., The Delphi technique: A worthwhile research approach for nursing?, “Journal of Advanced Nursing” 1994; 19, 1221–1225.

45. Van Teijlingen E., Pitchforth E., Bishop C., Russell E., Delphi method and nominal group technique in family planning and reproductive health research, “Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care” 2006; 32 (4): 249‒252.

46. Horton J.N., Nominal group technique: A method of decision–making by committee, “Anaesthesia” 1980; 35 (8): 811‒814.

47. Delp P., Thesen A., Motiwalla J., Seshardi N., Nominal group technique. Systems tools for project planning, “Annals of Global Health” 1977; 14–18.

48. Campbell S.M., Cantrill J.A., Consensus methods in prescribing research, “Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics” 2001; 26 (1): 5‒14.

49. Berian J.R., Baker T.L., Rosenthal R.A., Coleman J., Finlayson E., Katlic M.R.,... Russell M.M., Application of the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Methodology to a Large Multidisciplinary Stakeholder Group Evaluating the Validity and Feasibility of Patient-Centered Standards in Geriatric Surgery, “Health Services Research” 2018; 53 (5): 3350‒3372.

50. Nair R., Aggarwal R., Khanna D., Methods of formal consensus in classification/diagnostic criteria and guideline development, “Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism” 2011; 41 (2): 95‒105.

51. McGlynn E.A., Kosecoff J., Brook R.H., Format and conduct of consensus development conferences: Multination comparison, “International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care” 1990; 6 (3): 450‒469.

52. Consensus Conference Standard Operating Procedures ESMO Guidelines Committee, latest revision April 2019, https://www.esmo.org/content/download/77792/1426729/file/ESMO-Consensus-Conferences-Standard-Operating-Procedures-Apr2019.pdf (accessed: 5.06.2019).

53. Abram S.G.F., Beard D.J., Price A.J., BASK Meniscal Working Group. Arthroscopic meniscal surgery: A national society treatment guideline and consensus statement, “The Bone & Joint Journal” 2019; 101 (6): 652‒659.

Informacje

Informacje: Zdrowie Publiczne i Zarządzanie, 2019, Tom 17, Numer 4, s. 217 - 229

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4467/20842627OZ.19.023.12185

Typ artykułu: Oryginalny artykuł naukowy

Tytuły:

Polski:

Good practice for guidance development – review of consensus methods

Angielski:

Good practice for guidance development – review of consensus methods

Autorzy

Jacek Siwiec

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4058-7005

Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych i Taryfikacji, Warszawa

Magdalena Konieczna

Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych i Taryfikacji, Warszawa

Magdalena Koperny

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3352-0972

Agencja Oceny Technologii Medycznych i Taryfikacji, Warszawa

Publikacja: 2019

Status artykułu: Otwarte

Licencja: CC BY-NC-ND

Udział procentowy autorów:

Jacek Siwiec (Autor) - 33%

Magdalena Konieczna (Autor) - 33%

Magdalena Koperny (Autor) - 34%

Korekty artykułu:

-

Języki publikacji:

Angielski

Liczba wyświetleń: 1089

Liczba pobrań: 780

<p> Good practice for guidance development – review of consensus methods</p>

Pobierz pełny tekst

Tytuły

Abstrakt

Słowa kluczowe

Bibliografia

Informacje

Autorzy