Consensus methods: Review of original methods and their main alternatives used in public health;Méthodes de consensus : revue des méthodes originales et de leurs grandes variantes utilisées en santé publique

Revue d'Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 415-423

  Bourree F ^a   Michel, P ^a,b   Salmi, L R ^c,d  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE BORDEAUX   (France)

^b Ctr Geriatrie Ctr Hosp Univ B   (France)

^c INSERM   (France)

^d BORDEAUX UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Consensus; Consensus development conference; Delphi technique; Nominal group; Qualitative research

Indexed keywords

CONSENSUS; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; DELPHI STUDY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION;

EID: 57349097123     PISSN: 03987620     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respe.2008.09.006     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Jones J., and Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ 311 (1995) 376-380
2. In: Delbecq A.L., Van de Ven A.H., and Gustafson D.H. (Eds). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes (1975), Scott, Foresman, Glenview
3. Martino J. Technological forecasting for decision making (1993), McGraw-Hill, New York
4. Johnson D.E., Meiller L.R., Miller L.C., and Summers G.F. Needs assessment: Theory and methods (1987), Iowa State University Press, Ames
5. Welty G. Problems of selecting experts for Delphi exercises. Acad Manag J 15 (1972) 121-124
6. Kaplan A., Girshick M., and Skogstad A. The prediction of social and technological events. Public Opin Q 14 (1950) 93-110
7. Gordon TJ, Helmer O. Report on a long-range forecasting study. Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation; 1964 (report No.: R-2982).
8. Dalkey N. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation; 1969 (report No.: RM-5888-PR).
9. Adler M., and Ziglio E. Gazing into the Oracle: the Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health (1996), Jessica Kingsley Publisher, London
10. Rowe G., and Wright G. The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int J Forecast 15 (1999) 353-375
11. Fink A., Kosecoff J., Chassin M., and Brook R. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 74 (1984) 979-983
12. Fowles J. Handbook of future research (1978), Greenwood Press, Connecticut
13. Linstone H., and Turoff M. The Delphi method, techniques and applications (1975), Addison-Wesley Publisching ed
14. Brockoff K. The performance of forecasting groups in computer dialogue and face-to-face discussion (In: Linstone HA, Turroff M). In: Addison-Wesley, editor. The Delphi method: Techniques and applications; 1975.
15. Annells, DeRoche, Koch, Lewin, and Lucke. A Delphi study of district nursing research priorities in Australia. Appl Nurs Res 18 (2005) 36-43
16. De Villiers M.R., De Villiers P.J., and Kent A.P. The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Med Teach 27 (2005) 639-643
17. Schaller G., and Fournier P. Les priorités de prévention en santé mentale à Genève : une enquête par méthode Delphi. Sante Publique 10 (1998) 191-201
18. Cook C., Brismee J.M., Sizer J., and Phillip S. Subjective and objective descriptors of clinical lumbar spine instability: A Delphi study. Man Ther 11 (2006) 11-21
19. Richard S., Rawal S., and Martin D. An ethical framework for cardiac report cards: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics 6 (2005) 3
20. Ferri C.P., Prince M., Brayne C., Brodaty H., Fratiglioni L., Ganguli M., et al. Global prevalence of dementia: a Delphi consensus study. Lancet 366 (2005) 2112-2117
21. Keeney S., Hasson F., and McKenna H. Consulting the oracle: 10 lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research. J Adv Nurs 53 (2006) 205-212
22. Tugwell P., Sitthi-Amorn C., Hatcher-Roberts J., Neufeld V., Makara P., Munoz F., et al. Health Research Profile to assess the capacity of low and middle income countries for equity-oriented research. BMC Public Health 6 (2006) 151
23. Passig D. Imen-Delphi: A Delphi variant procedure for emergence (L'Imen-Delphi : émergence d'une variante de la procédure Delphi). Hum Organ 56 (1997) 53-63
24. Passig D., and Sharbat A. The Imen-Delphi procedure in practice. Syst Res Behav Sci 21 (2004) 187-191
25. Delbecq A.L., and Van de Ven A.H. A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci 7 (1971) 466-492
26. Van de Ven A., and Delbecq A. Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision making effectiveness. Acad Manag J 14 (1971) 203-211
27. Fitzpatrick R., and Boulton M. Qualitative methods for assessing health care. Qual Health Care 3 (1994) 107-113
28. Glaser E.M. Using behavioral science strategies for defining the state-of-the-art. J Appl Behav Sci 16 (1980) 79-92
29. Elwyn G., Edwards A., Iredale R., Davies P., and Gray J. Identifying future models for delivering genetic services: a nominal group study in primary care. BMC Fam Pract 6 (2005) 14
30. Vella K., Goldfrad C., Rowan K., Bion J., and Black N. Use of consensus development to establish national research priorities in critical care. BMJ 320 (2000) 976-980
31. Lloyd-Jones G., Fowell S., and Bligh J.G. The use of the nominal group technique as an evaluative tool in medical undergraduate education. Med Educ 33 (1999) 8-13
32. Potter M., Gordon S., and Hamer P. The nominal group technique: a useful consensus methodology in physiotherapy research. J Physiother 32 (2004) 126-130
33. Levine D.A., Saag K.G., Casebeer L.L., Colon-Emeric C., Lyles K.W., and Shewchuk R.M. Using a modified nominal group technique to elicit director of nursing input for an osteoporosis intervention. J Am Med Dir Assoc 7 (2006) 420-425
34. Aspinal F., Hughes R., Dunckley M., and Addington-Hall J. What is important to measure in the last months and weeks of life? A modified nominal group study. Int J Nurs Stud 43 (2006) 393-403
35. Ferguson J. The NIH consensus development program. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 21 (1995) 332-336
36. Rotondi A.J., Kvetan V., Carlet J., and Sibbald W.J. Consensus conferences in critical care medicine. Methodologies and impact. Crit Care Clin 13 (1997) 417-439
37. Guide pratique pour la réalisation d'une conférence de consensus. Paris: ANDEM; 1992.
38. Carpentier F, Pazart L, Durocher A, Dosquet P, Fleurette F, H M. Les conférences de consensus : base méthodologique pour leur réalisation en France. Anaes, service recommandations professionnelles; 1999.
39. Sherman M., Bain V., Villeneuve J.P., Myers R.P., Cooper C., Martin S., et al. The management of chronic viral hepatitis: A Canadian consensus conference 2004. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol 15 (2004) 313-326
40. Greig B., Oldaker T., Warzynski M., and Wood B. 2006 Bethesda International Consensus recommendations on the immunophenotypic analysis of hematolymphoid neoplasia by flow cytometry: recommendations for training and education to perform clinical flow cytometry. Cytometry B Clin Cytom 72 (2007) 23-33
41. Grivas T.B., Wade M.H., Negrini S., O'Brien J.P., Maruyama T., Hawes M.C., et al. SOSORT consensus paper: school screening for scoliosis. Where are we today?. Scoliosis 26 (2007) 17
42. Sulkowski M., and Benhamou Y. Therapeutic issues in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients. J Viral Hepat 14 (2007) 371-386
43. Kahan J., Kanouse D., and Winkler J. Stylistic variations in National Institutes of Health consensus statements, 1979-1983. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 4 (1988) 289-304
44. Wortman P.M., Vinokur A., and Sechrest L. Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. J Health Politics Policy Law 13 (1988) 469-498
45. Ferguson J. The NIH Consensus Development Program. The evolution of guidelines. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12 (1996) 460-474
46. McGlynn E., Kosecoff J., and Brook R. Format and conduct of consensus development conferences. Multination comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 6 (1990) 450-469
47. Bourg D, Boy D. Conférence de citoyens, mode d'emploi : Charles Léopold Mayer; 2005.
48. Fitch K, Bernstein S, Aguilar M, Burnand B, LaCalle J, Lazaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user's manual. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation; 2001 (report No.: l. MR-1269-DG-XII/RE).
49. Bases méthodologiques pour l'élaboration de recommandations professionnelles par consensus formalisé. Paris: HAS; 2006.
50. Brook RH. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. In: McCormick KA, Siegel RA, editors. Methodology perspectives. Rockville (MD): Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services; 1994. p. 59-70.
51. Diehl J, Garrigues V, Guidet B, Jonquet O, Jouvet P, Joye F, et al. Méthodologie de recommandations d'experts : Bureau du consensus, Société de réanimation de langue française (SRLF); 2002.
52. Park R., Fink A., Brook R., Chassin M., Kahn K., Merrick N., et al. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for three procedures: theoretical indications vs indications used in practice. Am J Public Health 79 (1989) 445-447
53. Hunter D., McKee C., Sanderson C., and Black N. Appropriate indications for prostatectomy in the UK: results of a consensus panel. J Epidemiol Community Health 48 (1994) 58-64
54. Shekelle P.G., Park R.E., Kahan J.P., Leape L.L., Kamberg C.J., and Bernstein S.J. Sensitivity and specificity of the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to identify the overuse and underuse of coronary revascularization and hysterectomy. J Clin Epidemiol 54 (2001) 1004-1010
55. Consensus formalisé d'experts sur les indications de radiographie « grand champ ». Paris: Anaes, service évaluation des technologies; 2003.
56. Prise en charge de l'hémochromatose liée au gène HFE (hémochromatose de type 1). Paris: HAS, service des recommandations professionnelles; 2005.
57. Gustafson D.H., Shukla R.K., Delbecq A., and Walster G.W. A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behav Hum Perform 9 (1973) 280-291
58. Van de Ven A.H., and Delbecq A. The effectiveness on nominal, Delphi and interacting group decision making processes. Acad Manag J 17 (1974) 605-621
59. Riggs W.E. The Delphi technique: An experimental evaluation. Technol Forecasting Soc Change 23 (1983) 89-94
60. Shekelle P., Chassin M., and Park R. Assessing the predictive validity of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method criteria for performing carotid endarterectomy. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 14 (1998) 707-727
61. Vader J.-P., Burnand B., Froehlich F., Larequi-Laubert T., Pache I., and Gonvers J.J. Indications à l'endoscopie digestive supérieure : comparaison de critères américains et suisses. Med Hyg 55 (1997) 2329-2333
62. Simonet M.L. Adéquation des soins : qu'en est-il du patient ?. Med Hyg 57 (1999) 2094-2097
63. Sarasin F.P. Méthodes de mesure de l'adéquation des soins et recommandations pour la pratique clinique. Med Hyg 57 (1999) 2098-2102
64. Froehlich F., Pache I., Burnand B., Vader J.-P., Fried M., and Kasecoff J. Underuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastroenterol 112 (1997) 690-697
65. Burnand B., Vader J., Froehlich F., Dubois R., Brook R., and Gonvers J. Reliability of panel-based guidelines for colonoscopy: an international comparison. Gastrointest Endosc (1998) 47
66. Pope C., and Mays N. Qualitative Research. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ 311 (1995) 42-45