Who’s Your Expert? Use of an Expert Opinion Survey to Inform Development of American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines
Tóm tắt
For many clinical questions in psychiatry, high-quality evidence is lacking. Credible practice guidelines for such questions depend on transparent, reproducible, and valid methods for assessing expert opinion. The objective of this study was to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of a method for assessing expert opinion to aid in the development of practice guidelines by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). A “snowball” process initially soliciting nominees from three sets of professional leaders was used to identify experts on a guideline topic (psychiatric evaluation). In a Web-based survey, the experts were asked to rate their level of agreement that specific assessments improve specific outcomes when they are included in an initial psychiatric evaluation. The experts were also asked about their own practice patterns with respect to the doing of the assessments. The main outcome measures are the following: number of nominated experts, number of experts who participated in the survey, and number and nature of quantitative and qualitative responses. The snowball process identified 1,738 experts, 784 (45 %) of whom participated in the opinion survey. Participants generally, but not always, agreed or strongly agreed that the assessments asked about would improve specified outcomes. Participants wrote 716 comments explaining why they might not typically include some assessments in an initial evaluation and 1,590 comments concerning other aspects of the topics under consideration. The snowball process based on initial solicitation of Psychiatry’s leaders produced a large expert panel. The Web-based survey systematically assessed the opinions of these experts on the utility of specific psychiatric assessments, providing useful information to substantiate opinion-based practice guidelines on how to conduct a psychiatric evaluation. The considerable engagement of respondents shows promise for using this methodology in developing future APA practice guidelines.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust. Washington: Institute of Medicine; 2011.
Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003;327:1459–61.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; March 2011. AHRQ Publication No. 10(11)–EHC063-EF. Chapters available at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/methodsguide.cfm.
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines 3: rating the quality of evidence - introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–6.
Schmidt C. Conflicting clinical guidelines. JNCI. 2013;105(1):2–3.
Koes BW, van Tulder M, Lin CW, Macedo LG, McAuley J, Maher C. An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care. Eur Spine J. 2010;19(12):2075–94.
McCaughey D, Bruning NS. Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policymakers. Implement Sci. 2010;5:39–52.
Lightle JP, Kagel JH, Arkes HR. Information exchange in group decision making: the hidden profile problem reconsidered. Manag Sci. 2009;55:568–81.
Murphy MK, Sanderson CFB, Black NA, Askham J, Lamping DL, Marteau T, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2(3):1–89.
Kane JM, Leucht S, Carpenter D, Docherty JP. Optimizing pharmacologic treatment of psychotic disorders: introduction: methods, commentary, and summary. J Clin Psychiatry. 2003;64 suppl 12:5–20.
NICE. Developing NICE clinical guidelines. http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/developingniceclinicalguidelines/developing_nice_clinical_guidelines.jsp (Accessed June 30, 2013).
NIH Consensus Conference Development Process. Rockville, MD. http://consensus.nih.gov. Accessed 30 June 2013.
Banks DE, Shi R, McLarty J, Cowl CT, Smith D, Tarlo SM, et al. American College of Chest Physicians Health Effects of Asbestos consensus statement on the respiratory health effects of asbestos. Results of a Delphi study. Chest. 2009;135:1619–27.
Hughes SL, Leith KH, Marquez DX, Moni G, Nguyen HQ, Desai P, et al. Physical activity and older adults: expert consensus for a new research agenda. Gerontologist. 2011;51(6):822–32.
Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci. 1963;9:458–67.
Tarlo SM, Balmes J, Balkissoon R, Beach J, Beckett W, et al. Diagnosis and management of work-related asthma. Chest. 2008;134:1S–41S.
American Psychiatric Association. Practice guideline for the psychiatric evaluation of adults, Second edition, 2006. American Psychiatric Association Arlington, VA. http://psychiatryonline.org/content.aspx?bookid=28§ionid=2021669.
Browne K. Snowball sampling: using social networks to research non-heterosexual women. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:47–60.
Knoke D, Yang S. Social network analysis. In: Quantitative applications in the social science. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2007.
Sadler GR, Lee HC, Lim RS, Fullerton J. Recruitment of hard-to-reach population subgroups via adaptations of the snowball sampling strategy. Nurs Health Sci. 2010;12(3):369–74.