Search

Background: This feasibility study has the primary aim of capturing and comparing participant expectations and experiences of using a formal consensus method (FCM) and to explore whether these views change following participation within a guideline committee where FCM are used. Methods: Twelve healthcare committee members and associated technical team members participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews before and after using FCM during guideline committee meetings. Interviews also focused on past experiences and expectations of informal consensus methods. Results: Participants said formal consensus included a greater range of evidence. They described positive reactions and found it a useful way to encourage involvement by balancing group power dynamics. Group discussion time was identified as important to clarify ideas, supported by good group chairing. However, participants reported that undertaking FCM required additional resources and suggested targeting its use for low quality evidence, limited committee expertise, or where the evidence is controversial. Conclusions: FCM is an acceptable alternative to informal consensus methods that has qualities specifically helpful to healthcare guidelines such as encouraging participation, inclusivity of a broad range of evidence, and managing group dynamics. More research is required to better understand when using formal consensus is most appropriate and effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: A sulphur dioxide (SO(2)) episode occurred in the United Kingdom in 1998. The worst affected area was the city of Nottingham. METHODS: Emergency hospital admissions in Nottingham in the episode week were compared with those in the previous week. RESULTS: A statistically significant increase in admissions for all respiratory diseases occurred in the episode week (odds ratio (OR) = 1.40, 95 per cent confidence interval (CI) = 1.00-1.94). Ten of the 25 excess admissions were for asthma, although the excess for asthma alone was not statistically significant (OR = 1.90, 95 per cent CI = 0.87-4.15). CONCLUSIONS: The excess admissions for respiratory diseases could have been caused by exposure to SO(2), to other pollutants present in increased concentrations during the pollution episode, or by seasonal variations in the frequency of asthma symptoms, or prevailing weather conditions. This study shows how simple analyses of routinely collected health data can be used to assess public health impacts of pollution episodes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]