Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Do consensus conferences work? A process evaluation of the NIH Consensus Development Program.

P M Wortman1, A Vinokur, L Sechrest

  • 1University of Michigan.

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law
|January 1, 1988
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Program evaluation.

Annual review of psychology·2009
Same author

Integrity and research: introducing the concept of dual blindness. how blind are double-blind clinical trials in alternative medicine?

Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)·2001
Same author

A meta-analytic approach to growth curve analysis.

Psychological reports·2000
Same author

Pervasive emotion recognition deficit common to alexithymia and the repressive coping style.

Psychosomatic medicine·2000
Same author

Use of alternative medicine by women with breast cancer.

The New England journal of medicine·1999
Same author

Sociodemographic correlates of alexithymia.

Comprehensive psychiatry·1998
Same journal

Still Learning from Oregonians About Medicaid.

Journal of health politics, policy and law·2026
Same journal

Communicative Infrastructure and the Global Diffusion of Latin American Food Policy.

Journal of health politics, policy and law·2026
Same journal

Frankenstein or My Fair Lady? Lessons on Participatory Governance from Oregon Medicaid's Priority-Setting Experiment.

Journal of health politics, policy and law·2026
Same journal

How Medicare Advantage Enrollment Affects Spending in Traditional Medicare: Spillovers and Implications for MA Benchmarks.

Journal of health politics, policy and law·2026
Same journal

Abortion Politics: Physician Mobilization in the Wake of the Dobbs Decision.

Journal of health politics, policy and law·2026
Same journal

When Protections Work but Processes Stall: Evaluating the No Surprises Act's Implementation Record.

Journal of health politics, policy and law·2026
See all related articles

This study evaluated the NIH Consensus Development Program, finding that selection bias in choosing questions and panelists undermines the credibility of medical technology assessments. The current format struggles with controversial topics, despite recommendations for improvement.

Area of Science:

  • Health Services Research
  • Medical Technology Assessment
  • Program Evaluation

Background:

  • The NIH Consensus Development Program convenes experts to evaluate medical technologies.
  • Assessments cover efficacy, safety, cost, and social impact over three-day conferences.
  • Previous evaluations have faced criticism for assessing developing programs.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To identify problems within the NIH Consensus Development Program.
  • To suggest modifications for improving the program's effectiveness and credibility.
  • To assess the impact of previous recommendations on the program.

Main Methods:

  • In-depth evaluation of eight consensus conferences (1980-1982).
  • Concurrent investigation of five conferences and archival review of 33 conferences.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Observation of four future conference planning meetings.

    • Main Results:

    • NIH adopted several recommendations from the evaluation report.
    • Selection bias in question and panelist choice remains a significant issue.
    • The current conference format is inadequate for addressing controversial medical topics.

    Conclusions:

    • Selection bias poses a major threat to the credibility of the consensus process.
    • The existing format limits the effective discussion of controversial medical issues.
    • Recommendations are provided to enhance the consensus process and related activities.