Building Timely Consensus Among Diverse Stakeholders: An Adapted Nominal Group Technique.

IF 4.4 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Deniz Cetin-Sahin, Geneviève Arsenault-Lapierre, Clara Bolster-Foucault, Juliette Champoux-Pellegrin, Laura Rojas-Rozo, Amélie Quesnel-Vallée, Isabelle Vedel
{"title":"Building Timely Consensus Among Diverse Stakeholders: An Adapted Nominal Group Technique.","authors":"Deniz Cetin-Sahin, Geneviève Arsenault-Lapierre, Clara Bolster-Foucault, Juliette Champoux-Pellegrin, Laura Rojas-Rozo, Amélie Quesnel-Vallée, Isabelle Vedel","doi":"10.1370/afm.3166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Building timely consensus among diverse stakeholders is important in primary health care research. Consensus can be obtained using the nominal group technique which includes 5 steps: (1) introduction and explanation; (2) silent generation of ideas; (3) sharing ideas; (4) discussion; and (5) voting and ranking. The main challenges in using this technique are a lack of representation of different stakeholder opinions and the amount of time taken to reach consensus. In this paper, we demonstrate how to effectively achieve consensus using an adapted nominal group technique that mitigates the challenges.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This project aimed to reach consensus on the priority care domains for individuals aged 65 or older, using an adapted nominal group technique with 4 strategies: (1) recruit 4 stakeholders groups (older people, clinicians, managers, decision makers) by using maximum variation and snowballing sampling approaches; (2) use remote tools to ensure high participation; (3) add an individual pre-elicitation activity to increase effectiveness; and (4) adapt discussions to the stakeholders' preferences for meaningful engagement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 28 diverse stakeholders participated. After the pre-elicitation activity and 1 round of group discussion, we reached consensus on a priority domain called symptoms, functioning, and quality of care. Adaptive group discussions and remote tools were the most effective strategies. All participants strongly agreed that they were able to express their views freely. Some perceived a need for emphasizing the alignment between the research objectives and anticipated practice and policy implications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This adapted nominal group technique is an effective and enriching method when timely consensus is needed among diverse stakeholders. Health care researchers in various fields can benefit from using this research methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":50973,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Family Medicine","volume":"22 6","pages":"525-532"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11588383/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Family Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.3166","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Building timely consensus among diverse stakeholders is important in primary health care research. Consensus can be obtained using the nominal group technique which includes 5 steps: (1) introduction and explanation; (2) silent generation of ideas; (3) sharing ideas; (4) discussion; and (5) voting and ranking. The main challenges in using this technique are a lack of representation of different stakeholder opinions and the amount of time taken to reach consensus. In this paper, we demonstrate how to effectively achieve consensus using an adapted nominal group technique that mitigates the challenges.

Methods: This project aimed to reach consensus on the priority care domains for individuals aged 65 or older, using an adapted nominal group technique with 4 strategies: (1) recruit 4 stakeholders groups (older people, clinicians, managers, decision makers) by using maximum variation and snowballing sampling approaches; (2) use remote tools to ensure high participation; (3) add an individual pre-elicitation activity to increase effectiveness; and (4) adapt discussions to the stakeholders' preferences for meaningful engagement.

Results: In total, 28 diverse stakeholders participated. After the pre-elicitation activity and 1 round of group discussion, we reached consensus on a priority domain called symptoms, functioning, and quality of care. Adaptive group discussions and remote tools were the most effective strategies. All participants strongly agreed that they were able to express their views freely. Some perceived a need for emphasizing the alignment between the research objectives and anticipated practice and policy implications.

Conclusions: This adapted nominal group technique is an effective and enriching method when timely consensus is needed among diverse stakeholders. Health care researchers in various fields can benefit from using this research methodology.

在不同利益相关者之间及时达成共识:改编的名义小组技术。
目的:在初级卫生保健研究中,在不同利益相关者之间及时达成共识非常重要。可以使用名义小组技术达成共识,该技术包括 5 个步骤:(1) 介绍和解释;(2) 默默提出想法;(3) 分享想法;(4) 讨论;(5) 投票和排序。使用该技术的主要挑战是缺乏对不同利益相关者意见的代表性以及达成共识所需的时间。在本文中,我们展示了如何利用经过调整的名义小组技术有效达成共识,从而减轻上述挑战:该项目旨在利用经过改良的名义小组技术就 65 岁或以上老年人的优先护理领域达成共识,该技术采用了 4 种策略:(1) 使用最大差异和滚雪球式抽样方法招募 4 个利益相关者群体(老年人、临床医生、管理人员、决策者);(2) 使用远程工具确保高参与度;(3) 增加个人预征询活动以提高有效性;(4) 根据利益相关者的偏好调整讨论,以实现有意义的参与:共有 28 位不同的利益相关者参与。经过预征活动和一轮小组讨论后,我们就一个名为 "症状、功能和护理质量 "的优先领域达成了共识。适应性小组讨论和远程工具是最有效的策略。所有参与者都强烈认为他们能够自由表达意见。有些人认为有必要强调研究目标与预期实践和政策影响之间的一致性:当需要在不同的利益相关者之间及时达成共识时,这种经过改编的名义小组技术是一种有效且丰富的方法。各个领域的医疗保健研究人员都可以从使用这种研究方法中获益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Family Medicine
Annals of Family Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
142
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Annals of Family Medicine is a peer-reviewed research journal to meet the needs of scientists, practitioners, policymakers, and the patients and communities they serve.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信