The Nominal Group Process Model

TACD Journal ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-37
Author(s):  
Ronnie Freeman ◽  
John N. Childers ◽  
Michael Petrasek
1995 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-147
Author(s):  
Karen E. Gerdes ◽  
Rose Ann Benson

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (03) ◽  
pp. 241-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalipso Chalkidou ◽  
Danielle Whicher ◽  
Weslie Kary ◽  
Sean Tunis

Background:In the debate on improving the quality and efficiency of the United States healthcare system, comparative effectiveness research is increasingly seen as a tool for reducing costs without compromising outcomes. Furthermore, the recent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act explicitly describes a prioritization function for establishing a comparative effectiveness research agenda. However, how such a function, in terms of methods and process, would go about identifying the most important priorities warranting further research has received little attention.Objectives:This study describes an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality-funded pilot project to translate one current comparative effectiveness review into a prioritized list of evidence gaps and research questions reflecting the views of the healthcare decision makers involved in the pilot.Methods:To create a prioritized research agenda, we developed an interactive nominal group process that relied on a multistakeholder workgroup scoring a list of research questions on the management of coronary artery disease.Results:According to the group, the areas of greatest uncertainty regarding the management of coronary artery disease are the comparative effectiveness of medical therapy versus percutaneous coronary interventions versus coronary artery bypass grafting for different patient subgroups; the impact of diagnostic testing; and the most effective method of developing performance measures for providers.Conclusions:By applying our nominal group process, we were able to create a list of research priorities for healthcare decision makers. Future research should focus on refining this process because determining research priorities is essential to the success of developing an infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research.


2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 100-112
Author(s):  
Kristin Knibbs ◽  
Lynnette Leeseberg Stamler

Public health managers' perceptions of enablers and barriers to social marketing use among public health nurses were examined. Employing qualitative, action research methods, this study incorporated focus groups using nominal group process and group discussion. Eleven public health managers from large urban, small urban, and rural Canadian public health departments participated. Content analysis was conducted on the focus group transcripts, and trustworthiness was strengthened through independent review by participants and subject experts. Several enablers to social marketing use were identified in the areas of educational preparation of nurses and the nature of public health nursing practice. The majority of barriers to social marketing use related to human and financial resources at the system level. In addition, we identified as imperative that managers at those levels responsible for budgetary planning understand the principles of social marketing more fully if they are to be expected to support its use. Social marketing has the potential to positively influence the health behavior of populations. However, if public health nurses and other health-promotion professions are to incorporate this health-promotion strategy more effectively into their practice, issues related to its use must be addressed.


2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1791-1797 ◽  
Author(s):  
RACHELLE BUCHBINDER ◽  
ROY BATTERHAM ◽  
SABINA CICIRIELLO ◽  
STAN NEWMAN ◽  
BEN HORGAN ◽  
...  

This report summarizes the proceedings of the first Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Health Literacy Special Interest Group workshop at the OMERACT 10 conference. Health literacy refers to an individual’s capacity to seek, understand, and use health information. Discussion centered on the relevance of health literacy to the rheumatology field; whether measures of health literacy were important in the context of clinical trials and routine care; and, if so, whether disease-specific measures were required. A nominal group process involving 27 workshop participants, comprising a patient group (n = 12) and a healthcare professional and researcher group (n = 15), confirmed that health literacy encompasses a broad range of concepts and skills that existing scales do not measure. It identified the importance and relevance of patient abilities and characteristics, but also health professional factors and broader contextual factors. Sixteen themes were identified: access to information; cognitive capacity; disease; expression/communication; finances; health professionals; health system; information; literacy/numeracy; management skills; medication; patient approach; dealing with problems; psychological characteristics; social supports; and time. Each of these was divided further into subthemes of one or more of the following: knowledge, attitude, attribute, relationship, skill, action, or context. There were virtually no musculoskeletal-specific statements, suggesting that a generic health literacy tool in rheumatology is justified. The detailed concepts across themes provided new and systematic insight into what needs to be done to improve health literacy and consequently reduce health inequalities. These data will be used to derive a more comprehensive measure of health literacy.


2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald P. LeFebvre ◽  
David H. Peterson ◽  
Mitchell Haas ◽  
Richard G. Gillette ◽  
Charles W. Novak ◽  
...  

An important goal of chiropractic clinical education should be to teach specific evidence-based practice (EBP) skills to chiropractic students, interns, and doctors. Using a nominal group process, the authors produced a document similar to the Council of Chiropractic Education standards for clinical competencies that can be used to drive an EBP curriculum. Standard texts and journal articles were consulted to create the standards for this program and each standard and corresponding learning objective was discussed in detail and was then graded by the committee in terms of importance and the level of competency that should be attained. Six standards and 31 learning objectives were generated with the learning objectives being further divided into lists of specific competencies. It is the hope of these authors that by sharing this document it can serve as a comprehensive and detailed seed document for other institutions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document