Journal Information
Vol. 7. Issue 39.
Pages 294-301 (November - December 1993)
Vol. 7. Issue 39.
Pages 294-301 (November - December 1993)
Open Access
No Todo es Acuerdo en el Consenso: Limitaciones de Los Métodos de Consenso en los Servicios de Salud
There is not Always Agreement in Consensus. Limitations of Consensus Methods in Health Services
Visits
4850
Salvador Peiró Moreno*, Eduard Portella Argelaguet
Institut Valenciá d'Estudis en Salud Pública. Valencia
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Resumen

La necesidad de adoptar decisiones en situaciones de incertidumbre ha conducido a una elevada utilización de los métodos de consenso (técnica del grupo nominal, método Delphi y conferencias de consenso) en los servicios de salud. La revisión efectuada en el presente artículo muestra que el uso adecuado de estas técnicas requiere un alto grado de rigor metodológico, en especial respecto a la declaración de objetivos de los financiadores, la selección apropiada de participantes, realización previa de una síntesis de la información preexistente, la definición del grado de acuerdo con el que se alcanza el consenso y la evaluación del impacto del mismo.

Palabras clave:
Métodos de consenso
Investigación de servicios sanitarios
Técnicadel Grupo Nominal
Método Delphi
Conferencias de Consenso
Gestión sanitaria
Summary

Taking decisions in uncertain situations has led to a high use of the consensus methods (Nominal Group Technique, Delphi Method, and Consensus Conferences) in the health services. The review made in this article shows that the appropriate use of these techniques requires a high degree of methodologic precision, especially in relation to the financer's declaration of objectives, the appropriate selection of the participants, previous realization of a synthesis of the preexistent information, the definition of the agreement degree which leads to the consensus and in the evaluation of its impact.

Key words:
Consensus methods
Health services research
Nominal Group Technique
Delphi Method
Consensus Conference
Health management
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
J. Varela.
Los métodos de consenso en el sector sanitario.
Gac Sanit, 5 (1991), pp. 114-117
[2.]
J. Pill.
The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography.
Socio-Econ Plan Sci, 3 (1971), pp. 57-71
[3.]
H.A. Linstone, M. Turoff.
The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, (1975),
[4.]
A.L. Delbecq, A. Van de Ven, D.H. Gustafson.
Técnicas grupales para la planeación.
Ed. Trillas, (1984),
[5.]
A.H. Van de Ven, A.L. Delbecq.
The nominal Group as a Research Instrument for Exploratory Health Studies.
Am J Public Health, 632 (1972), pp. 337-342
[6.]
A. Delbecq, A. Van de Ven.
A group process model for problem identification and program planning.
J Applied Behav Sci, 7 (1971), pp. 467-492
[7.]
P. Delp, A. Thesen, J. Motiwalla, N. Seshadri.
Systems Tools for Project Planning.
pp. 14-18
[8.]
A. Fink, J. Kosecoff, M. Chassin, R.H. Brook.
Consensus Methods: Characteristics and Guidelines for Use.
Am J Public Health, 74 (1984), pp. 979-983
[9.]
D. Rennie.
Consensus Statements.
N Engl J Med, 304 (1981), pp. 665-666
[10.]
S. Perry, J.T. Kalberer.
The NIH Consensus-Development Program and the Assessment of Health-Care Technologies. The First Two Years.
N Engl J Med, 303 (1980), pp. 169-172
[11.]
I. Jacoby.
Evidence and consensus.
JAMA, 259 (1988), pp. 3039
[12.]
A. Giraud, D. Jolly.
Origines et definition des conférences de consensus.
Les consensus en medicine. Analyse et bilan des conférences de consensus dans le monde, pp. 11-20
[13.]
I. Jacoby.
Les Etats-Unis d'Amerique. Histoire et impact du programme de consensus américain.
Le consensus en médicine. Analyse et bilan des conférences de consensus dans le mnde, pp. 23-32
[14.]
D. Perry.
The NIH Consensus Development Program; A Decade Later.
N Engl J Med, 317 (1987), pp. 485-488
[15.]
J.R. Banegas.
Las conferencias de consenso llegan a nuestro país. Un instrumento racional para la evaluación y difución de las tecnologías médicas.
Rev San Hig Pub, 63 (1989), pp. 7-14
[16.]
P.M. Wortman, A. Vinokur, L. Sechrest.
Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH consensus development program.
J Health Polit Policy Law, 13 (1988), pp. 469-498
[17.]
J. Kosecoff, D.E. Kanouse, W.H. Rogers, L. McCloskey, C.M. Winslow, R.H. Brook.
Effects of the National Institute of Healt Consensus Development Program on Physician Practique.
JAMA, 258 (1987), pp. 2708-2713
[18.]
M. Johnsson.
Evaluation of the consensus conference program in Sweden. Its impact on physicians.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 4 (1988), pp. 89-94
[19.]
I. Jacoby, S.M. Clark.
Direct mailing as a means of disseminating NIH Consensus Statements.
JAMA, 255 (1986), pp. 1328-1330
[20.]
J.D. Winkler, D.E. Kanouse, L. Brodsley, R.H. Brook.
Popular press coverage of eight National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Topics.
JAMA, 255 (1986), pp. 1323-1327
[21.]
J. Calltorp.
Consensus development conferences in Sweden. Effects on health policy and administration.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 4 (1988), pp. 75-88
[22.]
J. Lomas, G.M. Anderson, M. Enkin, E. Vayda, R. Roberts, B. MacKinnon.
The role of evidence in the consensus process. Results from a Canadian consensus exercise.
JAMA, 259 (1988), pp. 3001-3005
[23.]
J. Lomas, G.M. Anderson, K. Domnick-Pierre, E. Vayda, M.W. Enkin, W.J. Hannah.
Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians.
N Engl J Med, 321 (1989), pp. 1306-1311
[24.]
E.M. Rogers, J.K. Larsen, C.U. Lowe.
The consensus development process for medical technologies: A cross-cultu-ral comparison of Sweden and the United States.
JAMA, 248 (1982), pp. 1880-1882
[25.]
R.H. Brook, R.E. Park, C.M. Winslcw, J.B. Kosecoff, M.R. Chassin.
Diagnosis and treatment of coronary disease: Comparison of doctors' attitudes in the USA and the U.K.
Lancet, i (1988), pp. 750-753
[26.]
E. McGlyn, J. Kosecoff, R.H. Brook.
Format and conduct of Consensus Development Conferences. Multination Comparison.
Int J Technol Assessment Health Care, (1990), pp. 459-469
[27.]
S. Perry, S.L. Wilkinson.
The technology assessment and practice guidelines forum. A modified group judgment method.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 8 (1992), pp. 289-300
[28.]
R.H. Brook, M.R. Chassin, A. Fink, D.H. Solomon, J. Kosecoff, R.E. Park.
A Method for the detailed assessement of the appropriateness of medical technologies.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2 (1986), pp. 53-63
[29.]
R.E. Park, A. Fink, R.H. Brook, M.R. Chassin, K.L. Kahn, N.J. Merrick, et al.
Physician rating of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures.
Am J Public Health, 76 (1986), pp. 766-772
[30.]
C.D. Naylor, A. Basinki, R.S. Baigre, B.S. Goldman, J. Lomas.
Placing patients in the queue for coronary revascularization: Evidence for practice variations from an expert panel process.
Am J Public Health, 80 (1990), pp. 1246-1252
[31.]
S.D. Horn, J.W. Williamson.
Statistical methods reability and validity testing: an application to nominal group judgements in health care.
Med Care, 15 (1977), pp. 922-928
[32.]
E.H. Ahrens.
The diet-heart questions in 1985: has is really been settled.
Lancet, i (1985), pp. 1085-1087
[33.]
M.F. Oliver.
Consensus or Nonsensus conferences on coronary heart disease.
Lancet, i (1985), pp. 1087-1089
[34.]
A.R. Feinstein.
Fraud, distortion, delusion and consensus: The problem of human and natural deception in epidemiologic science.
Am J Med, 84 (1988), pp. 475-478
[35.]
J. Lomas.
Words without action? The production, dissemination, and impact of consensus recommendations.
Ann Rev Public Health, 12 (1991), pp. 41-65
[36.]
F. Mullan, I. Jacoby.
The town meeting for technology. The maturation of consensus conferences.
JAMA, 254 (1985), pp. 1068-1072
[37.]
M. McKee, P. Priest, M. Ginzler, N. Black.
How representative are members of expert panels?.
Qual Assur Health Care, 3 (1991), pp. 89-94
[38.]
L.L. Leape, R.E. Park, J.P. Kahan, R.H. Brook.
Group judgments of appropriateness: the effect of panel composition.
Qual Assur Health Care, 4 (1992), pp. 151-159
[39.]
R. West.
Assessment of evidence versus consensus or prejuice.
J Epidemiol Community Health, 46 (1992), pp. 321-322
[40.]
A. Granados.
Las conferencias de consenso: ¿un método para la evaluación de las tecnologías médicas?.
Gac Sanit, 5 (1991), pp. 201-202
[41.]
B. Stoking.
First consensus development conference in United Kingdom: on coronary artery bypass grafting. Views of audience, panel, and speakers.
BMJ, 291 (1985), pp. 713-716
[42.]
E.A. Scott, N. Black.
When does consensus exist in expert panels?.
J Public Health Med, 13 (1991), pp. 35-39
[43.]
C. Goodman.
Perspectives du programme de conférences de consensus du National Institute of Health (NIH).
Le consensus en médicine. Analyse et bilan des conférences de consensus dans le monde, pp. 69-76
[44.]
M.N. Hill, C.S. Weisman.
Physician's perceptions of consensus report.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 7 (1991), pp. 30-41
Copyright © 1993. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
Download PDF
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?