Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Consensus Methods (consensus + methods)
Selected AbstractsConsensus methods in prescribing researchJOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACY & THERAPEUTICS, Issue 1 2001S. M. Campbell MA Econ First page of article [source] Panic disorder phenomenology in urban self-identified caucasian,non-hispanics and caucasian,hispanicsDEPRESSION AND ANXIETY, Issue 1 2003Michael Hollifield M.D. Abstract The epidemiology of panic disorder is well known, but data about some phenomenological aspects are sparse. The symptom criteria for panic disorder were developed largely from rational expert consensus methods and not from empirical research. This fact calls attention to the construct validity of the panic disorder diagnosis, which may affect accuracy of epidemiological findings. Seventy self-identified Non-Hispanic,Caucasian (Anglo) and Hispanic,Caucasian (Hispanic) people who were diagnosed with DSM-III-R panic disorder with or without agoraphobia were invited to complete a Panic Phenomenological Questionnaire (PPQ), which was constructed for this study from the Hamilton Anxiety Scale Items and The DSM-III-R panic symptoms. Fifty (71%) subjects agreed to participate, and there was no response bias detected. Seven symptoms on the PPQ that are not in the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria were reported to occur with a high prevalence in this study. Furthermore, many symptoms that occurred with a high frequency and were reported to be experienced as severe are also not included in current nosology. A few of the DSM-IV criterion symptoms occurred with low prevalence, frequency, and severity. Cognitive symptoms were reported to occur with higher frequency and severity during attacks than autonomic or other symptoms. There were modest differences between ethnic groups with regard to panic attack phenomena. Further research using multiple empirical methods aimed at improving the content validity of the panic disorder diagnosis is warranted. This includes utilizing consistent methods to collect data that will allow for rational decisions about how to construct valid panic disorder criteria across cultures. Depression and Anxiety 18:7,17, 2003. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [source] Content validity of the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification SystemDEVELOPMENTAL MEDICINE & CHILD NEUROLOGY, Issue 10 2008Robert J Palisano PT ScD The aim of this study was to validate the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS-E&R) for children and youth with cerebral palsy using group consensus methods. Eighteen physical therapists participated in a nominal group technique to evaluate the draft version of a 12- to 18-year age band. Subsequently, 30 health professionals from seven countries participated in a Delphi survey to evaluate the revised 12- to 18-year and 6- to 12-year age bands. Consensus was defined as agreement with a question by at least 80% of participants. After round 3 of the Delphi survey, consensus was achieved for the clarity and accuracy of the descriptions for each level and the distinctions between levels for both the 12- to 18-year and 6- to 12-year age bands. Participants also agreed that the distinction between capability and performance and the concept that environmental and personal factors influence methods of mobility were useful for classification of gross motor function. The results provide evidence of content validity of the GMFCS-E&R. The GMFCS-E&R has utility for communication, clinical decision making, databases, registries, and clinical research. [source] Prioritizing patients for elective surgery: a systematic reviewANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Issue 8 2003Andrew D. MacCormick Background: Priority scoring tools are mooted as means for dealing with burgeoning elective surgical waiting lists. There is ongoing development work in New Zealand, Canada and the UK. This emerging international perspective is invaluable in determining the application of these tools and addressing any pitfalls. Methods: A systematic electronic literature review was performed. Information was also retrieved using a search of reference lists of all papers included in the review and contact with those who were involved in the development of such criteria. Results: The ethical basis of prioritization differed among priority scoring tools and in a number was not stated. The majority of tools covered criteria for specific procedures. Delphi consensus methods and regression were the predominant methods for determining specific criteria. Authors' opinions were the main source of generic criteria. Linear and non-linear models or matrices summated criteria. Conclusion: There is debate over the ethical basis for prioritization. It is a concern that it is not addressed in many studies. The development of generic criteria showed a dearth of consensus approaches that represents a significant gap in our knowledge. On the aspects of summation and weighting, the impact of assumptions on the prioritization of patients may not have been fully explored. [source] | ||||||||||