Jones J, Hunter D
Nuffield Community Care Studies Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Leicester.
BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376.
Health providers face the problem of trying to make decisions in situations where there is insufficient information and also where there is an overload of (often contradictory) information. Statistical methods such as meta-analysis have been developed to summarise and to resolve inconsistencies in study findings--where information is available in an appropriate form. Consensus methods provide another means of synthesising information, but are liable to use a wider range of information than is common in statistical methods, and where published information is inadequate or non-existent these methods provide a means of harnessing the insights of appropriate experts to enable decisions to be made. Two consensus methods commonly adopted in medical, nursing, and health services research--the Delphi process and the nominal group technique (also known as the expert panel)--are described, together with the most appropriate situations for using them; an outline of the process involved in undertaking a study using each method is supplemented by illustrations of the authors' work. Key methodological issues in using the methods are discussed, along with the distinct contribution of consensus methods as aids to decision making, both in clinical practice and in health service development.
医疗服务提供者面临着在信息不足以及(通常相互矛盾的)信息过载的情况下做出决策的问题。诸如荟萃分析之类的统计方法已被开发出来,用于总结和解决研究结果中的不一致性——前提是能以适当的形式获取信息。共识方法提供了另一种综合信息的手段,但可能会使用比统计方法中常见的范围更广的信息,并且在已发表的信息不足或不存在的情况下,这些方法提供了一种利用相关专家的见解来做出决策的途径。本文描述了医学、护理和卫生服务研究中常用的两种共识方法——德尔菲法和名义群体技术(也称为专家小组),以及使用它们的最合适情况;通过作者工作的实例补充了使用每种方法进行研究的过程概述。文中讨论了使用这些方法时的关键方法学问题,以及共识方法在临床实践和卫生服务发展中作为决策辅助手段的独特贡献。