McGlynn E A, Kosecoff J, Brook R H
UCLA School of Medicine.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(3):450-69. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300001045.
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.
美国国立卫生研究院开发的共识发展会议方法已被多个国家采用并修改。基于已发表的文章以及与各国代表的交流,我们研究了九个国家(美国、加拿大、丹麦、芬兰、荷兰、挪威、瑞典、瑞士和英国)这些会议的组织和开展情况是有助于还是不利于实现既定的会议目标。我们得出结论,共识会议的开展过程或许有必要改进。在为会议小组准备资料时,应采用更科学的文献综合方法,如荟萃分析。通过投票或其他允许对共识声明的部分内容存在结构化分歧的方法使决策过程正规化,可能会扩大此类会议能够探讨的问题范围和类型。最后,各国应考虑让共识声明的撰写时间长于传统的隔夜会议,因为后者似乎不太可能促进清晰的思考。