FINAL STAGES OF CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS IN DESIGNATION OF A PRESERVATION DISTRICT FOR GROUPS OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS : A case of Kawagoe(Urban Planning)

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (17) ◽  
pp. 455-458
Author(s):  
Taketo OKADA ◽  
Atsuyuki OKAZAKI
Keyword(s):  
Urban Planning ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Historic Buildings ◽  
Building Process

In Reply:Office-Based Medication Dispensing

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 84 (2) ◽  
pp. 400-400
Author(s):  
DANIEL W. SHEA
Keyword(s):  
American Academy ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Organizational Policy ◽  
Executive Board ◽  
Hard Data ◽  
American Academy Of Pediatrics ◽  
Building Process ◽  
Ambulatory Medicine ◽  
Practice Activity

The statement was developed by the Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine (of which I was then chairman) with the approval and support of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Executive Board. It was designed to respond to the needs of the membership for direction and guidance in this area of practice activity. Establishing organizational policy on an issue such as this for which there are no hard data requires a consensus building process where expert opinion is solicited, competing views are evaluated, and a thoughtful position is fashioned. Our committee, at all times, sought substance, fairness, and balance in formulating the content of this statement.

An Experimental Study on “Consensus to Match” Game for Analyzing Emotional Interaction in Consensus Building Process

2021 ◽  
pp. 54-62
Author(s):  
Kyoko Ito ◽  
Yoshiki Sakamoto ◽  
Rieko Yamamoto ◽  
Mizuki Yamawaki ◽  
Daisuke Miyazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Study ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Emotional Interaction ◽  
Building Process

Recommendations for the Involvement of Patient Research Partners (PRP) in OMERACT Working Groups. A Report from the OMERACT 2014 Working Group on PRP

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter P. Cheung ◽  
Maarten de Wit ◽  
Clifton O. Bingham ◽  
John R. Kirwan ◽  
Amye Leong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Patient Participation ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Building Process ◽  
Practical Guidelines ◽  
Working Groups ◽  
Training And Support ◽  
Participation In Research

Objective.Patient participation in research is increasing; however, practical guidelines to enhance this participation are lacking. Specifically within the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) organization, although patients have participated in OMERACT meetings since 2002, consensus about the procedures for involving patients in working groups has not been formalized. The objective is to develop a set of recommendations regarding patient research partner (PRP) involvement in research working groups.Methods.We conducted a systematic literature review on recommendations/guidelines of PRP involvement in research; elaborated a structured consensus process involving multiple participants to develop a set of recommendations; and sought endorsement of recommendations by OMERACT.Results.In the 18 articles included in the literature review, there was general agreement on the broad concepts for recommendations covering PRP involvement in research although they were heterogeneous in detail. Most considered PRP involvement in all phases of research with early engagement, training, and support important, but details on the content were scarce. This review informed a larger consensus-building process regarding PRP inclusion in OMERACT research. Three overarching principles and 8 recommendations were developed, discussed, and refined at OMERACT 2014. The guiding principles were endorsed during the OMERACT plenary session.Conclusion.These recommendations for PRP involvement in OMERACT research reinforce the importance of patient participation throughout the research process as integral members. Although the applicability of the recommendations in other research contexts should be assessed, the generalizability is expected to be high. Future research should evaluate their implementation and their effect on outcome development.

Guide for Applying Codes and Standards for Safe Operation and Maintenance of Pressure Equipment in Refinery and Petrochemical Services

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
National Standards ◽  
Process Industry ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Consensus Process ◽  
Safe Operation ◽  
Chemical Process Industry ◽  
Building Process ◽  
Safety And Reliability ◽  
New Construction ◽  
Service Inspection

After pressure equipment (aka fixed or static equipment) is designed, fabricated, and constructed to ASME new construction codes and standards (C/S), it is delivered and placed in-service. After that the In-service Inspection (ISI) and Post-Construction C/S begin to govern. Within the ASME, the Post Construction Committee (PCC) produces and maintains the standards that govern equipment after it has been placed inservice. Within the API Standards Organization, the Subcommittee on Inspection (SCI) and the Corrosion and Materials Subcommittee (CMSC) produce and maintain most of the ISI standards and recommended practices that govern pressure equipment in the refining and chemical process industry. This paper shows how many of those ISI and PCC C/S are intended to work together to maintain the safety and reliability of pressure equipment and piping after it has been placed in service. This paper also highlights what’s new with many of these C/S that have been recently updated or newly published. Both the API and ASME use the rigorous, standardized consensus building process outlined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for formulating and publishing their respective C/S. This paper will show how users of these ISI/PCC codes and standards are benefited by the application of the ANSI consensus process.

scholarly journals Pesticide Emission Quantification for Life Cycle Assessment: A Global Consensus Building Process

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter FANTKE ◽  
Assumpció ANTÓN ◽  
Tim GRANT ◽  
Kiyotada HAYASHI
Keyword(s):  
Life Cycle Assessment ◽  
Life Cycle ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Global Consensus ◽  
Building Process

scholarly journals A Consensus Definition of Misophonia: Using a Delphi Process to Reach Expert Agreement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Swedo ◽  
David M. Baguley ◽  
Damiaan Denys ◽  
Laura J. Dixon ◽  
Mercede Erfanian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Delphi Method ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Consensus Definition ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Building Process ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Common Understanding ◽  
Iterative Voting

AbstractMisophonia is a disorder of decreased tolerance to specific sounds or their associated stimuli that has been characterized using different language and methodologies. The absence of a common understanding or foundational definition of misophonia hinders progress in research to understand the disorder and develop effective treatments for individuals suffering from misophonia. From June 2020 through January 2021, a project was conducted to determine whether a committee of experts with diverse expertise related to misophonia could develop a consensus definition of misophonia. An expert committee used a modified Delphi method to evaluate candidate definitional statements that were identified through a systematic review of the published literature. Over four rounds of iterative voting, revision, and exclusion, the committee made decisions to include, exclude, or revise these statements in the definition based on the currently available scientific and clinical evidence. A definitional statement was included in the final definition only after reaching consensus at 80% or more of the committee agreeing with its premise and phrasing. The results of this rigorous consensus-building process were compiled into a final definition of misophonia that is presented here. This definition will serve as an important step to bring cohesion to the growing field of researchers and clinicians who seek to better understand and support individuals experiencing misophonia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document