Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1996 Feb 1;154(3):331–336.

Do consensus conferences influence their participants?

A M Clarfield 1, S Kogan 1, H Bergman 1, D E Shapiro 1, M P Beaudet 1
PMCID: PMC1487514  PMID: 8564902

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether participation in a consensus conference on the assessment of dementia would influence conference participants with respect to their recommendations to primary care physicians for the assessment of dementia. DESIGN: Questionnaire before and after the conference. SETTING: Canadian Consensus Conference on the Assessment of Dementia, held in Montreal, Oct. 5 and 6, 1989. PARTICIPANTS: All 38 experts representing relevant health disciplines who participated in the consensus conference; 36 completed both questionnaires. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' opinion before and after the conference as to how frequently each of 28 manoeuvres (12 blood tests, 4 neurologic imaging procedures, 4 types of consultation and 8 "other" tests) should be ordered by primary care physicians as part of an assessment of a patient with dementia suspected in clinical grounds. RESULTS: For 18 (64%) of the 28 manoeuvres (10 of the 12 blood tests, 3 of the 4 neurologic imaging procedures and 5 of the 8 "other" tests), there was a shift in opinion after the conference toward recommending that primary care physicians order them less often; for 10 of these 18 (5 blood tests and 5 "other" tests) the shift was statistically significant. For the remaining 10 manoeuvres (36%) the shift in opinion was toward a recommendation that primary care physicians order them more often; the shift was not statistically significant for any of these 10 manoeuvres. CONCLUSION: Expert members of a consensus conference are influenced by the process of having participated in such a conference and are capable and willing to chance their initial recommendations when confronted with relevant data.

Full text

PDF
331

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Battista R. N., Hodge M. J. Clinical practice guidelines: between science and art. CMAJ. 1993 Feb 1;148(3):385–389. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Clarfield A. M. Diagnosing and treating dementia. BMJ. 1989 Mar 4;298(6673):600–600. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6673.600-b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Clarfield A. M., Foley J. M. The American and Canadian consensus conferences on dementia: is there consensus? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993 Aug;41(8):883–886. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1993.tb06190.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Clarfield A. M., Larson E. B. Should a major imaging procedure (CT or MRI) be required in the workup of dementia? An opposing view. J Fam Pract. 1990 Oct;31(4):405–410. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Clarfield A. M. Standards, guidelines and clinical policies. CMAJ. 1992 Aug 15;147(4):402–403. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hayward R. S., Laupacis A. Initiating, conducting and maintaining guidelines development programs. CMAJ. 1993 Feb 15;148(4):507–512. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hill M. N., Levine D. M., Whelton P. K. Awareness, use, and impact of the 1984 Joint National Committee consensus report on high blood pressure. Am J Public Health. 1988 Sep;78(9):1190–1194. doi: 10.2105/ajph.78.9.1190. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hill M. N., Weisman C. S. Physicians' perceptions of consensus reports. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1991;7(1):30–41. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300004827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Katzman R. Should a major imaging procedure (CT or MRI) be required in the workup of dementia? An affirmative view. J Fam Pract. 1990 Oct;31(4):401–405. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Kosecoff J., Kanouse D. E., Rogers W. H., McCloskey L., Winslow C. M., Brook R. H. Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practice. JAMA. 1987 Nov 20;258(19):2708–2713. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. McGlynn E. A., Kosecoff J., Brook R. H. Format and conduct of consensus development conferences. Multi-nation comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(3):450–469. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300001045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Pierre K. D., Vayda E., Lomas J., Enkin M. W., Hannah W. J., Anderson G. M. Obstetrical attitudes and practices before and after the Canadian Consensus Conference Statement on Cesarean Birth. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(11):1283–1289. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90044-d. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ramsay R., Katona C. L. Diagnosing and treating dementia. BMJ. 1989 Jan 7;298(6665):51–52. doi: 10.1136/bmj.298.6665.51-b. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Squires B. P. Statements from professional associations, specialty groups and consensus conferences: what editors expect. CMAJ. 1991 Aug 15;145(4):297–298. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Wortman P. M., Vinokur A., Sechrest L. Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1988 Fall;13(3):469–498. doi: 10.1215/03616878-13-3-469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES