LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Oyebode, Oyinlola; Patrick, Hannah; Walker, Alexander; Campbell, Bruce; Powell, John (2016)
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: RA
Objectives: \ud The aim of this study was to determine the aspects of expert advice that decision makers find most useful in the development of evidence-based guidance and to identify the characteristics of experts providing the most useful advice.\ud \ud Methods: \ud First, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seventeen members of the Interventional Procedures Advisory Committee of the UK's National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Interviews examined the usefulness of expert advice during guidance development. Transcripts were analyzed inductively to identify themes. Second, data were extracted from 211 experts’ questionnaires for forty-one consecutive procedures. Usefulness of advice was scored using an index developed through the qualitative work. Associations between usefulness score and characteristics of the expert advisor were investigated using univariate and multivariate analyses.\ud \ud Results: \ud \ud Expert opinion was seen as a valued complement to empirical evidence, providing context and tacit knowledge unavailable in published literature, but helpful for interpreting it. Interviewees also valued advice on the training and experience required to perform a procedure, on patient selection criteria and the place of a procedure within a clinical management pathway. Limitations of bias in expert opinion were widely acknowledged and skepticism expressed regarding the anecdotal nature of advice on safety or efficacy outcomes. Quantitative analysis demonstrated that the most useful advice was given by clinical experts with direct personal experience of the procedure, particularly research experience.\ud \ud Conclusions: \ud Evidence-based guidance production is often characterized as a rational, pipeline process. This ignores the valuable role that expert opinion plays in guidance development, complementing and supporting the interpretation of empirical data.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 5. Raine R, Sanderson C, Hutchings A, Carter S, Larkin K, Black N: An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. The Lancet, 2004, 364:429-437.
    • 6. Moreira T. Diversity in Clinical Guidelines: The role of repertoires of Evaluation. Social Science & Medicine, 2005, 60:1975-1985.
    • 7. Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP. Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2012;345.
    • 8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Intervention Procedures Programme Methods Guide. London; 2007.
    • 9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Intervention Procedures Programme- Programme Manual. London; 2007.
    • 10. Goldenberg MJ. On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Social Science & Medicine, 2006. 62:2621- 2632
    • 11. Berg M, Meulen RT, Van Den Burg M. Guidelines for appropriate care: the importance of empirical normative analysis. Health Care Anal, 2001. 9:77- 99.
    • 12. Gabbay J, le May A: Practice-based Evidence for Healthcare: Clinical Mindlines. Routledge; 2010.
    • 13."Jamous, H. and Peloille, B. (1970) Changes in the French universityhospital system." In Jackson J.A. (ed.) Professions and Professionalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • 14.Stuebe AM: Level IV evidence- adverse anecdote and clinical practice. New England Journal of Medicine, 2011, 365(1):8-9.
    • 15.Lyratzopoulos G, Hoy AR, Veeramootoo D, Shanmuganathan NV, Campbell B: Influence of expert clinical adviser characteristics on opinions about interventional procedures. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2008, 24(2): 166-169.
    • 16. Campbell B, Chambers E, Kelson M, Bennett S, Lyratzopoulos G. The nature and usefulness of patient experience information in producing guidance about interventional procedures. Quality & safety in health care. 2010 Dec;19(6).
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article