QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (47) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wortman, P. M. Articles by Sechrest, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation

Do Consensus Conferences Work? A Process Evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program

Lee Sechrest
University of Arizona

The purpose of this evaluation study is to identify problems and suggest modifications in the NIH Consensus Development Program. The current program consists of three-day conferences in which experts assess medical technologies for issues of efficacy, safety, conditions of use, and other related topics (e.g., costs and social impact). Eight consensus conferences held between 1980 and 1982 were studied in depth using a variety of methods; five of the conferences were investigated concurrently. In addition, archival material was examined for all but one of the 33 conferences held up to that time, and four planning meetings for future conferences were observed. The delay in publishing our findings provided an opportunity to examine the changes introduced by NIH; it also allowed us to avoid the criticism of numerous prior evaluations for finding fault with programs that are still developing. NIH adopted many of the recommendations in our evaluation report and has investigated others. Based on our evaluation and more recent evidence, however, we conclude that the major problem that was uncoveredselection bias, particularly with respect to the choice of questions and panelistsremains a significant threat to the credibility of the consensus process. More specifically, the results indicate that controversial issues cannot be properly addressed within the present conference format, although that was one of its major purposes. Recommendations for improving the consensus process are presented, as are their implications for a larger set of consensus activities that are currently being conducted.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. A. Brennan Practice Guidelines and Malpractice Litigation: Collision or Cohesion? Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, March 1, 1991; 16(1): 67 - 85. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. A. Rettig The Politics of Organ Transplantation: A Parable of Our Time Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, March 1, 1989; 14(1): 191 - 227. [Abstract] [PDF]