J Korean Med Sci.  2009 May;24(Suppl 2):S242-S246. 10.3346/jkms.2009.24.S2.S242.

Consensus Making Process in the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences Guideline for Physical Impairment: Evaluation as a Social Process

• Youm Y
• Lee MJ
• Hwang SC

• KMID: 1713808
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2009.24.S2.S242

Abstract

The steering committee of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences Guideline for Physical Impairment was fully aware of the social processes of disability evaluation from the beginning and thus, developed a series of strategies to examine and incorporate social property of the evaluation into the evaluation guide. Although those strategies could not be implemented to full extent because of lack of budget and time, we believe it worthwhile to share those in this paper as an example of general framework for developing disability evaluation. A series of strategies will be introduced and discussed that views the evaluation process as social per se, and propose a scheme that is designed to obtain growing legitimacy starting from core experts to expanded experts to general public. Also preliminary analyses on surveys of public attitude and experts' opinion with regard to the relative importance of each possible disability revealed the following three facts: 1) Public had difficulty weighing relative importance of many impairments. 2) Regarding some impairments including complex regional pain syndrome many doctors had varied opinions. 3) Public attitude did not always consistent with doctor's opinion. All these findings strongly suggest the need for developing strategies to draw consensus for legitimate and effective evaluation.

Keyword

Disability Evaluation; Social Process; Consensus

MeSH Terms

Academies and Institutes
*Consensus
*Disability Evaluation
Expert Testimony
Humans
Korea
*Practice Guidelines as Topic
Public Opinion
Public Policy
Social Support

Reference

1. Bordogna G, Fedrizzi M, Pasi G. A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision making based on OWA operators. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum. 1997. 27:126–132.

2. Bryson N. Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content. Comput Oper Res. 1996. 23:27–35.

3. Carlsson C, Ehrenberg D, Eklund P, Fedrizzi M, Gustafsson P, Lindholm P, Merkuryeva G, Riissanen T, Ventre AG. Consensus in distributed soft environments. Eur J Oper Res. 1992. 61:165–185.

4. Chiclana F, Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E. Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1998. 97:33–48.

5. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F. A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 2002. 32:394–402.

6. Alston RM, Kearl JR, Vaughan MB. Is there a consensus among economists in the 1990s? American Economic Review, Papers and Proceeding. 1992. 82:203–209.

7. Fuller D, Geide-Stevenson D. Consensus among economists: revisited. J Econ Educ. 2003. 369–387.

8. Kearl JR, Pope CL, Whiting GC, Wimmer LT. A confusion of economists. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceeding. 1979. 69:28–37.

9. Heckathorn DD. Respondent driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems. 1997. 44:174–199.

10. Heckathorn DD. Respondent driven sampling II: deriving statistically valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Social Problems. 2002. 49:11–34.

11. Heckathorn DD, Semaan S, Robert S, Broadhead RS, Hughes J. Extensions of respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of injection drug users aged 18-25. AIDS Behav. 2002. 6:55–67.