Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-jtdwj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T02:52:34.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Technology Assessment and Practice Guidelines Forum: A Modified Group Judgment Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2009

Seymour Perry  and
Susann L. Wilkinson
Seymour Perry
Affiliation:
Georgetown University School of Medicine
Susann L. Wilkinson
Affiliation:
Georgetown University School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes a new group-judgment process, modified from the consensus development approach of the U.S. National Institutes of Health. It is called the “forum” method, a shorthand term for “technology assessment and practice guidelines forum.” This approach is aimed at (a) describing the current state of knowledge of the technology under study; (b) developing practice guidelines for the use of the technology; and (c) providing information for insurers, consumers, policymakers, and others. A pilot study was conducted focusing on total parenteral nutrition. The validity of the process and of the recommendations and their acceptability were evaluated in a survey of participants and a selected group of nonparticipants. Based on the survey results, the forum method appears to be a valuable method for assessing technologies, defining their clinical role, and developing practice guidelines.

Information

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Spring 1992 , pp. 289 - 300
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1.Ahrens, E. H. Jr. The diet-heart question in 1985: Has it really been settled? Lancet, 1985, i, 1085–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Breast cancer treated more aggressively. Oncology Times, January 1, 1987, 9, 1.Google Scholar
3.Goodman, C., & Baratz, S. R.Improving consensus development for health technology assessment: An international perspective. Washington, DC: Council on Health Care Technology, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 1990.Google Scholar
4.Hanlon, C. R.Consensus development in medicine. Bulletin of the American College of Surgery, 1980, 65, 1–3.Google Scholar
5.Holleb, A. I.Medicine by proxy? Cancer: A Journal for Clinicians, 1980, 30, 191–92.Google Scholar
6.Jones, S. E.Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1981, 245, 1527–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Kalberer, J. T. Jr. The pros and cons of consensus statements. Workshop report. Bulletin of the American College of Surgery, 1981, 66, 15–16.Google Scholar
8.Kanouse, D. E., et al. Changing medical practice through technology assessment: An evaluation of the NIHconsensus development program. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press, 1989.Google Scholar
9.Kolata, G.Heart panel's conclusions questioned. Science, 1985, 225, 40–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.May, W. E.Consensus or coercion. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1985; 254, 1077.Google Scholar
11.McGlynn, E. A., Kosecoff, J., & Brook, R. H.Format and conduct of consensus development conferences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1990, 6, 450–69.Google Scholar
12.Mullan, F., & Jacoby, I.The town meeting for technology. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1985, 254, 1068–72.Google Scholar
13.Office of Medical Applications of Research. Guidelines for the selection and management of consensus development conferences. Bethesda, MD: Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 1988.Google Scholar
14.Oliver, M.E Consensus or nonsensus conferences on coronary heart disease. Lancet, 1985, i, 1087–89.Google Scholar
15.Perry, S.The NIH consensus development program: A decade later. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 317, 485–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Perry, S., & Kalberer, J. T. Jr. The NIH consensus-development program and the assessment of health care technologies. New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, 303, 169–72.Google Scholar
17.Perry, S., & Pillar, B.The appropriate use of health care technology (abstract). Abstracts of the Fifth Annual Meeting of the International Society of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1989, 26.Google Scholar
18.Pillar, B., & Perry, S. (eds.). Evaluating total parenteral nutrition. Final report and statement of the technology assessment and practice guidelines forum. Nutrition, 1990, 6(4–6), 313–35; 397–404; 474–91.Google Scholar
19.Pillar, B., & Perry, S. Technology assessment and practice guidelines forum on total parenteral nutrition (abstract). Association of Health Services Research Annual Meeting, Arlington, VA, 1990.Google Scholar
20.Rennie, D.Consensus statements. New England Journal of Medicine, 1981, 304, 665–66.Google Scholar
21.Report of a study by a committee of the Institute of Medicine, Council on Health Care Technology. Consensus development at the NIH: Improving the program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.Google Scholar
22.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Strategies for medical technology assessment. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1982 (publication no. OTA-H-181).Google Scholar
23.Wassersug, J. D.Do consensus panels serve a “truly great purpose” American Medical News, 1989, 24/31(March), 25.Google Scholar
24.Wortman, P. M., Vinokur, A., & Sechrest, L.Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH consensus development program. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law 1988, 13, 469–98.Google Scholar