Conducting Online Expert panels: a feasibility and experimental replicability study

Background This paper has two goals. First, we explore the feasibility of conducting online expert panels to facilitate consensus finding among a large number of geographically distributed stakeholders. Second, we test the replicability of panel findings across four panels of different size. Method...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:BMC medical research methodology Ročník 11; číslo 1; s. 174
Hlavní autori: Khodyakov, Dmitry, Hempel, Susanne, Rubenstein, Lisa, Shekelle, Paul, Foy, Robbie, Salem-Schatz, Susanne, O'Neill, Sean, Danz, Margie, Dalal, Siddhartha
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: London BioMed Central 23.12.2011
BioMed Central Ltd
Springer Nature B.V
BMC
Predmet:
Administrative support
Advisory Committees
Agreements
Capacity Building - methods
Capacity Building - standards
Clinical trials
Consensus
Cooperative Behavior
Data collection
Decision Making
Expert Testimony
Experts
Feasibility Studies
Health Sciences
Health services
Health Services Research - methods
Hospitals
Humans
Internet - standards
Internet - utilization
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Online Systems
Quality control
Quality Improvement - organization & administration
Quality Improvement - standards
Reproducibility of Results
Research Article
Stakeholders
Statistical Theory and Methods
Statistics as Topic
Statistics for Life Sciences
Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Theory of Medicine/Bioethics
Veterans
Discussion Board
Continuous Quality Improvement
Online Process
Large Panel
Elicitation Process
ISSN:1471-2288, 1471-2288
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:Background This paper has two goals. First, we explore the feasibility of conducting online expert panels to facilitate consensus finding among a large number of geographically distributed stakeholders. Second, we test the replicability of panel findings across four panels of different size. Method We engaged 119 panelists in an iterative process to identify definitional features of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). We conducted four parallel online panels of different size through three one-week phases by using the RAND's ExpertLens process. In Phase I, participants rated potentially definitional CQI features. In Phase II, they discussed rating results online, using asynchronous, anonymous discussion boards. In Phase III, panelists re-rated Phase I features and reported on their experiences as participants. Results 66% of invited experts participated in all three phases. 62% of Phase I participants contributed to Phase II discussions and 87% of them completed Phase III. Panel disagreement, measured by the mean absolute deviation from the median (MAD-M), decreased after group feedback and discussion in 36 out of 43 judgments about CQI features. Agreement between the four panels after Phase III was fair (four-way kappa = 0.36); they agreed on the status of five out of eleven CQI features. Results of the post-completion survey suggest that participants were generally satisfied with the online process. Compared to participants in smaller panels, those in larger panels were more likely to agree that they had debated each others' view points. Conclusion It is feasible to conduct online expert panels intended to facilitate consensus finding among geographically distributed participants. The online approach may be practical for engaging large and diverse groups of stakeholders around a range of health services research topics and can help conduct multiple parallel panels to test for the reproducibility of panel conclusions.
Bibliografia:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1471-2288
1471-2288
DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-11-174