Applying Formal Consensus Methods To Enhance The Credibility Of Public Health Guideline Development – A Case Study

This article examines the use of formal consensus methods employed in the adaptation of the United Kingdom's National measles guidelines for the public health management of measles in Ireland. The authors explore the efficacy of a modified e-Delphi approach and Nominal Group Technique (NGT) adopted for these purposes. In articulating the findings, the authors will adhere to the ACCURATE Consensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) guidelines.

This study was undertaken in accordance with a Consensus-Based Recommendations (CBR) protocol. The study phases comprised modified e-Delphi rounds and two NGT meetings with a consensus panel. The intention was to gather panellist input and agree on a conclusive list of guideline recommendations.

Following a review of evidence about international jurisdictions, and contextualisation of evidence to an Irish frame of reference, all draft recommendations received consensus (100%) among all panellists following requisite modifications to the text.

This is the first study to establish a public health guideline in Ireland through the explicit use of formal consensus methods and to report on this process in compliance with the ACCORD guideline. Globally, formal consensus methods are not yet routinely used for developing public health guidelines. This underlines the significance of this study for enhancing international understanding of the fundamentals of applying formal consensus methods.

This case study has demonstrated that, when used in tandem with the “GRADE-ADOLOPMENT” approach, formal consensus methods are effective in synthesizing the requisite evidence sources to ensure a rigorous, comprehensive, and equitable evidence base for public health practice.