Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:35:20.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consensus Conferences in Different Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Buch Andreasen
Buch Andreasen
Affiliation:
Danish Medical Research Council
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The different models of consensus development conferences (CDC5) are analyzed in relation to democratic technology assessment. In some countries CDCs are mainly concerned with influencing the quality of clinical practice and thus are dominated by medical experts. In other countries, CDCs are directed towards the public and the decision makers on the political and administrative level. The Danish experience demonstrates that CDCs may be a forceful social technology with a strong potential to influence decisions about medical as well as non-medical technology

Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 305 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Buch, Andreasen P. Technology assessment in Europe: An overview of issues. Proceedings of the European Congress of Technology Assessment. Amsterdam, 02 2–4, 1987, in press.Google Scholar
Buch, Andreasen P. La technologie medicale dans un petit pays au systeme de protection sociale avancé, le cas du Danemark. In Systemes de santé, pouvoirs publics et financeurs: qui controle quoi? La Documentation Francaise, 1987, 149–154.Google Scholar
Buch, Andreasen P., & Jørgensen, T.European Newsletter on Quality Assurance, 1985,2, 3–4.Google Scholar
Casparie, A. F., & Everdingen, J. E.Consensus development conferences in the Netherlands. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1985, 1, 905–912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidelines for the selection and management of consensus development conferences. Bethesda, MD: NIH, 1983.Google Scholar
Lomas, J.The consensus process and evidence dissemination. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1986, 134, 1340–1341.Google ScholarPubMed
Mullan, F., & Jacoby, I.The town meeting for technology. Journal of American Medical Association, 1985, 254, 1068–1072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stocking, B.European Newsletter on Quality Assurance, 1985, 2, 3.Google Scholar