[Consensus conferences as a tool for implementing national policy--a review and international comparison]

The consensus conference (CC) is a professional methodology for comprehensive decision-making on controversial healthcare issues. The CC is based on health technology assessment, combining an in-depth review of the literature, consultation with experts and discussion within the framework of a broad panel of public and medical representatives. The process has many advantages but was also faces criticism; it reflects democratic deliberation, and reveals an opportunity to bridge the conceptual gap between policymakers and the public. The process enables citizens to be involved in decisions regarding unsolved medical dilemmas, as well as the means for resolving these questions, in an open transparent way. Those who criticize this mechanism refer to the restricted understanding of medical topics by lay-men, leading to only a negligible influence by nonmedical participants. However, the range of successful recommendations varies between countries. Many constraints raise the need for bending and matching the original model to different scenarios around the world; in the USA, an effort was made to preserve professional and academic principles, while in European countries flexibility led to evolving methodologies, and other frameworks developed. Currently, the most common methodology is the "citizen jury", empowering the participation of representatives of the public, as a mirror to preferences of the individual and society. Despite resistance, consensus conferences remain a successful model for policy-making in healthcare for over 30 years. During 2009 the method was even expended for global discussion involving representatives from 38 nations.