PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Consensus methods are crucial in developing clinical guidelines. Different methods, such as the Delphi and nominal group techniques, are commonly used, but there is a lack of detailed instructions on how to implement them effectively. The survey aims to explore the opinions and attitudes of the chair, panel and working group on the critical elements of the consensus methods during guideline development.
We used a cross-sectional design to conduct this study and sent a structured questionnaire to stakeholders, including the chair, panel members, and working group participants, through the popular mobile phone application WeChat.We selected participants using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. The questionnaire gathered information on demographics, experiences, opinions, and concerns regarding consensus methods and guideline development.
The sample comprised 290 participants representing 31 provinces or municipalities. Among them, the most significant number of respondents (n = 107, 36.9%) were from Beijing. Most participants, specifically 211 (72.76%), held senior professional titles, while 186 (64.14%) adhered to ongoing guidelines. The Delphi method was the most commonly used consensus method (n = 132, 42.31%), but the respondents had only a preliminary understanding of it (n = 147, 47.12%). The consensus process also revealed the insufficiency of involving pharmacoeconomists, patients, and nurses.
Consensus methods have to be standardised and used consistently in the guideline development process. The findings of this study offer insights into diverse roles and more effective ways to apply the consensus process during guideline development.
We used a cross-sectional design to conduct this study and sent a structured questionnaire to stakeholders, including the chair, panel members, and working group participants, through the popular mobile phone application WeChat.We selected participants using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. The questionnaire gathered information on demographics, experiences, opinions, and concerns regarding consensus methods and guideline development.
The sample comprised 290 participants representing 31 provinces or municipalities. Among them, the most significant number of respondents (n = 107, 36.9%) were from Beijing. Most participants, specifically 211 (72.76%), held senior professional titles, while 186 (64.14%) adhered to ongoing guidelines. The Delphi method was the most commonly used consensus method (n = 132, 42.31%), but the respondents had only a preliminary understanding of it (n = 147, 47.12%). The consensus process also revealed the insufficiency of involving pharmacoeconomists, patients, and nurses.
Consensus methods have to be standardised and used consistently in the guideline development process. The findings of this study offer insights into diverse roles and more effective ways to apply the consensus process during guideline development.
摘要：
目的：共识方法对于制定临床指南至关重要。不同的方法,如德尔菲和名义分组技术，是常用的，但是缺乏有关如何有效实施它们的详细说明。调查旨在探讨主席的意见和态度,关于指南制定过程中共识方法的关键要素的小组和工作组。
方法：我们使用横断面设计进行了这项研究，并向利益相关者发送了结构化问卷，包括椅子,小组成员,和工作组的参与者，通过流行的手机应用微信。我们使用目的性抽样和雪球抽样的组合选择了参与者。问卷收集了人口统计信息，经验,意见,以及对共识方法和指导方针制定的担忧。
结果：样本包括代表31个省或市的290名参与者。其中,大多数受访者（n=107，36.9%）来自北京。大多数参与者,具体为211（72.76%），拥有高级职称，186人(64.14%)遵守现行准则。德尔菲法是最常用的共识法(n=132，42.31%)，但受访者对它只有初步了解(n=147，47.12%)。共识过程还揭示了药物经济学家参与的不足，病人,和护士。
结论：共识方法必须在指南制定过程中标准化和一致使用。这项研究的结果提供了对不同角色的见解，以及在指南制定过程中应用共识过程的更有效方法。
方法：我们使用横断面设计进行了这项研究，并向利益相关者发送了结构化问卷，包括椅子,小组成员,和工作组的参与者，通过流行的手机应用微信。我们使用目的性抽样和雪球抽样的组合选择了参与者。问卷收集了人口统计信息，经验,意见,以及对共识方法和指导方针制定的担忧。
结果：样本包括代表31个省或市的290名参与者。其中,大多数受访者（n=107，36.9%）来自北京。大多数参与者,具体为211（72.76%），拥有高级职称，186人(64.14%)遵守现行准则。德尔菲法是最常用的共识法(n=132，42.31%)，但受访者对它只有初步了解(n=147，47.12%)。共识过程还揭示了药物经济学家参与的不足，病人,和护士。
结论：共识方法必须在指南制定过程中标准化和一致使用。这项研究的结果提供了对不同角色的见解，以及在指南制定过程中应用共识过程的更有效方法。
