Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE? THE VALUE OF EXPERT ADVICE IN THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE-BASED GUIDANCE: A MIXED METHODS STUDY OF THE NICE INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES PROGRAMME

  • Oyinlola Oyebode (a1), Hannah Patrick (a2), Alexander Walker (a3), Bruce Campbell (a2) and John Powell (a2)...

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE? THE VALUE OF EXPERT ADVICE IN THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE-BASED GUIDANCE: A MIXED METHODS STUDY OF THE NICE INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES PROGRAMME
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE? THE VALUE OF EXPERT ADVICE IN THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE-BASED GUIDANCE: A MIXED METHODS STUDY OF THE NICE INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES PROGRAMME
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      THE GHOST IN THE MACHINE? THE VALUE OF EXPERT ADVICE IN THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE-BASED GUIDANCE: A MIXED METHODS STUDY OF THE NICE INTERVENTIONAL PROCEDURES PROGRAMME
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. The Ministry of Health and Social Welfare: Ordinance: Establishing the criteria for inclusion of medicinal products in the basic and the supplementary reimbursement list of the Croatian institute for health insurance. http://www.mvep.hr/zakoni/pdf/763.pdf (accessed September 18, 2015).
2. Office federal de la santé publique: Donnees-cles pour une nouvelle demande d’admission d’une preparation originale de medicine classique. http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/krankenversicherung/06492/07568/?lang = fr (accessed September 18, 2015).
3. Campbell, B, Marlow, M. Advice for NICE from specialists: Outcomes from a symposium with specialist societies. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2013;95:535537.
4. Atkins, L, Smith, JA, Kelly, MP, Michie, S. The process of developing evidence-based guidance in medicine and public health: A qualitative study of views from the inside. Implement Sci. 2013;8:101.
5. Raine, R, Sanderson, C, Hutchings, A, et al. An experimental study of determinants of group judgments in clinical guideline development. Lancet. 2004;364:429437.
6. Moreira, T. Diversity in clinical guidelines: The role of repertoires of evaluation. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:19751985.
7. Gøtzsche, PC, Ioannidis, JP. Content area experts as authors: Helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses? BMJ. 2012;345:e7031.
8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intervention procedures programme methods guide. London: NICE; 2007.
9. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Intervention procedures programme- programme manual. London: NICE; 2007.
10. Goldenberg, MJ. On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62:26212632.
11. Berg, M, Meulen, RT, Van Den Burg, M. Guidelines for appropriate care: The importance of empirical normative analysis. Health Care Anal. 2001;9:7799.
12. Gabbay, J, le May, A. Practice-based evidence for healthcare: Clinical mindlines. New York: Routledge; 2010.
13. Jamous, H, Peloille, B. Changes in the French university-hospital system. In: Jackson, JA, ed. Professions and professionalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1970.
14. Stuebe, AM. Level IV evidence-adverse anecdote and clinical practice. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:89.
15. Lyratzopoulos, G, Hoy, AR, Veeramootoo, D, Shanmuganathan, NV, Campbell, B. Influence of expert clinical adviser characteristics on opinions about interventional procedures. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:166169.
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. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e28.
17. Greenhalgh, T, Howick, J, Maskrey, N. Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis? BMJ. 2014;348:g3725.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed