HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hutchings, A Articles by Black, N Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hutchings, A Articles by Black, N Topic Collections Relevant Article

An experimental study of determinants of the extent of disagreement within clinical guideline development groups

Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK

Correspondence to:
MrA Hutchings
Health Services Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK; andrew.hutchings{at}lshtm.ac.uk 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.

Abbreviations: GP, general practitioner; MADM, mean absolute deviation from the median; MHP, mental health professional

Keywords: consensus development methods; appropriateness; agreement

Relevant Article

Quality Lines
Qual. Saf. Health Care 2005 14: 230a. [Extract] [Full Text]