Reliability of Clinical Guideline Development Using Mail-Only Versus In-Person Expert Panels

Published in: Medical Care, v. 41, no. 12, Dec. 2003, p. 1374-1381

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2003

by Donna L. Washington, Steven J. Bernstein, James P. Kahan, Lucian L. Leape, Caren Kamberg, Paul G. Shekelle

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.lww-medicalcare.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines quickly become outdated. One reason they might not be updated as often as needed is the expense of collecting expert judgment regarding the evidence. The RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method is one commonly used method for collecting expert opinion. The authors tested whether a less expensive, mail-only process could substitute for the standard in-person process normally used. METHODS: The authors performed a 4-way replication of the appropriateness panel process for coronary revascularization and hysterectomy, conducting 3 panels using the conventional in-person method and 1 panel entirely by mail. All indications were classified as inappropriate or not (to evaluate overuse), and coronary revascularization indications were classified as necessary or not (to evaluate underuse). Kappa statistics were calculated for the comparison in ratings from the 2 methods. RESULTS: Agreement beyond chance between the 2 panel methods ranged from moderate to substantial. The kappa statistic to detect overuse was 0.57 for coronary revascularization and 0.70 for hysterectomy. The kappa statistic to detect coronary revascularization underuse was 0.76. There were no cases in which coronary revascularization was considered inappropriate by 1 method, but necessary or appropriate by the other. Three of 636 (0.5%) hysterectomy cases were categorized as inappropriate by 1 method but appropriate by the other. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of the overuse and underuse assessments from the mail-only compared with the conventional in-person conduct of expert panels in this application was similar to the underlying reproducibility of the process. This suggests a potential role for updating guidelines using an expert judgment process conducted entirely through the mail.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.