|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 18
Topic and Scope of Consensus
Development Conferences:
Criteria and Approach for Selection of
Topics and Properties for Assessment
Tore Schersten
During the past 10 to 15 years, unparalleled advances in biomedi-
cal and technical research have revolutionized the practice of medi-
cine. Powerful new health care technologies for prevention, diagno-
sis, and treatment have emerged, for example, vaccines, computed
tomography (CT) scanners, magnetic resonance imaging, and organ
and cell transplantation procedures. New biotechnologies such as
the technique of recombinant DNA, gene cloning and protein pro-
duction, monoclonal antibody fonnation, and microchemical instru-
mentation all open up novel, almost unlimited, opportunities for
medicine. These advances, however, have created serious problems
for the public and its representatives, for the patient, and for the
medical community. The problems are not only scientific and medi-
cal but also of ethical, economic, social, and legal concern. There-
fore, not surprisingly, the need and demand for comprehensive as-
sessments of health care technologies have grown in the developed
world. A technological assessment should provide decision makers
with useful information and guidelines on policy questions that con-
cern the application of medical technology. The recommendations
should be based on the validation of safety and efficacy, of cost-
effectiveness, and of social and ethical implications of the use of the
technology—in short, the assessment should answer the question of
whether the benefits from the use of a particular technology out-
weigh the costs in human and monetary terms.
18
OCR for page 19
TOPIC AND SCOPE
SCOPE OF THE CONFERENCE
19
The consensus development conference, a rapid data synthesis
method, has the potential to be a powerful instrument for the provi-
sion of balanced advice about a technology and for the definition of
the need for further information and research. By and large, these
are the main reasons for He great interest and rapid adoption of this
synthesis method in the Western world.
The consensus development conference process does not generate
new scientific data and therefore cannot solve or contribute to the
solution of a true scientific conflict. The conference can disclose
and define what is known and what is not known about a technology
and can also contribute to new interpretations and evaluations of the
available scientific data. Thus, the participants may formulate the
best current judgment of a given technology in relation to the health
care service requirements, the patients' desires, and the demands of
the society. The aims and the expectations of a consensus develop-
ment conference differ between countries because of variations in
the cultural settings and in the health care systems.
In the United States, where the consensus development confer-
ence originated, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) initially
proposed the process in 1977 as a means to facilitate the transfer of
biomedical research results into clinical practice. NIH considered
the consensus development conference to be a natural extension of
the biomedical research community's obligation to assume more
responsibility for the practical implications of research results. The
primary goal of the conference process was to validate the safety
and efficacy of a particular technology. The original intent of the
scope of the program was to emphasize emerging technologies.
However, with time the scope of the program has widened, and most
of the technologies assessed through the consensus exercises are
already in use (Perry, 1987, 19881.
The NIH emphasis on safety and efficacy was natural in view of
the activities of the National Center for Health Care Technology
(NCHCr). NCHCT was involved in assessment activities related to
the delivery of health services, hospital management, and biding
systems in the time period of 1977 to 1981. The NCHCI assess-
ments focused on the economic and social implications of medical
technologies (P.L`. 95-623; U.S. Congress, 19781.
Seven European countries, including Denmark, Finland, The Neth-
OCR for page 20
20
CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT
eriands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom,
have started consensus development conference programs. These
countries have modified the conference according to the cultural
settings and health care systems of their societies. In general, the
scope of the European consensus exercises is broader than that of
the NIH conferences. European conferences usually include an eco-
nomic evaluation of the technology and an attempt to address the
ethical implications of technological use. In the Nordic countries,
the conferences also examine the availability of a technology to
ensure equal access for all patients in need of the technology. In
these countries, the conferences create a base for societal debate and
evaluation of the medical technology. The consensus development
conference has also been used in policy-making and in the allocation
of resources. The target groups of the conferences in these countries
include doctors, politicians, administrators, and the public (Andreasen,
1988; Klazinga et al., 1987~.
Questions about technologies may address the effects on patients,
the patients' relatives, and organizations, including the potential
additional personnel and equipment requirements (for example, the
need for physicians, assistants, or technicians). The effects on hu-
man resources in terms of education and training of new specialists
and the employment of persons in isolated areas, as well as the
overall opportunity costs to society of technological use have also
been examined. There are several examples in European countries
where a conference has influenced the allocation of resources. In
Sweden, for example, the resources for total hipjoint replacement
were increased and reallocated after a consensus development con-
ference. The diffusion of CI scanners was also enhanced after the
conference on the management of stroke.
Only one direct comparison between the NIH conference and the
European model has been performed (Rogers et al., 1982~. NIH
arranged a conference on hipjoint replacement, and a similar con-
ference was held on the same topic in Sweden. The conferences
provided the opportunity to compare consensus development in two
cultures with different health care systems. The Swedish conference
was convened to discuss the costs and the availability of the technol-
ogy in Sweden as well as safety and efficacy. The conference in the
United States focused on safety and efficacy but did not include
considerations of costs or availability. Despite differences in the
cultures and the focus of the conferences, the consensus statements
OCR for page 21
TOPIC AND SCOPE
21
were remarkably similar in the evaluation of efficacy and safety.
This comparison supports the possibility of the transfer of informa-
tion on biomedical technologies between countries and the use of
evaluations done in different countries independent of the original
health care systems. In addition, the process may be used effec-
tively in different cultural settings.
SELECTION OF TOPIC
In the United States as well as in other countries with consensus
development conference programs, all types of medical technologies
(i.e., for prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation) have
been examined.
The initial intent of the NIH program was to emphasize new and
emerging technologies, although most of the conferences in the United
States and other countries have addressed established technologies
already in widespread use. This selection seems natural in view of
the fact that the majority of technologies in use have never been
comprehensively evaluated for safety, efficacy, and social conse-
quences.
The following criteria for the selection of topics are similar in all
countries.
· The topic under consideration should be important from a quan-
titative and/or qualitative point of view; i.e., it should be of medical
importance, affect a significant number of people, and/or be very
costly.
· There must be an available base of scientific information about
the technology.
· There must be a scientific debate about the use of the technol-
ogy and a discrepancy between the available knowledge and its prac-
tical application in medicine.
In the Nordic countries the availability of the technology for the
people (i.e., equity) has also been an important criterion for selec-
tion.
International experience with consensus development conferences
has shown that the method is important for the evaluation of the
quality of clinical practice and/or for the provision of information
and guidelines to administrative and political decision makers. Data
concerning the efficacy and safety of a medical technology are of
OCR for page 22
22
CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT
universal value and therefore can be transferred between health care
systems. On the other hand, evaluation of factors of importance for
education, health care system organization, and economics will have
limited transferability between countries. Hence, there are good
reasons for a country to develop a national consensus conference
program.
REFERENCES
Andreasen, P.B. 1988. Consensus conferences in different countries, aims and per-
spectives. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 4:305-
308.
Klazinga, N.S., A.F. Casparie, and J.J.E. van Everdingen. 1987. Contribution of
medical decision-making to consensus development conferences. Health Policy
8:339-346.
Perry, S. 1987. The NIH consensus development program a decade later. New
England Journal of Medicine 317:485488.
Perry, S. 1988. Consensus development: An historical note. International Journal
of Technology Assessment in Health Care 4:481-485.
Rogers, E.M., J.K. Larsen, and C.U. Lowe. 1982. The consensus development
process of medical technologies: A cross-cultural comparison of Sweden and the
United States. Joumal of the American Medical Association 248:1880-1882.
U.S. Congress. 1978. P.L. 95-623. Health Services Research, Health Statistics and
Health Care Technology Act of 1978.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
development conference
