Location of Repository

Emerging prenatal genetic tests : developing a health technology assessment (HTA) framework\ud for informed decision-making

By Ala Szczepura, Karoline Freeman, Leeza Osipenko, Julia Hyde and HASH(0x55bfd7972cc0)

Abstract

Delphi Process\ud In preparation for the first Delphi exercise, a list of questions was produced from the academic literature, webbased\ud sources and interviews with experts. These questions were structured into broad dimensions and a draft\ud questionnaire piloted. A final list of 73 questions formed the basis of the first Delphi survey. Participants were\ud asked to grade the perceived importance of each question for inclusion in HTA reports on new prenatal genetic\ud tests (4 = Essential; 3 = Desirable, but not essential; 2 = Useful but should not be required; 1 = Of little/ no\ud importance; 0 = I have no basis for judgement). Secondly, they were asked to indicate whether a question\ud should be addressed during test development or whether the question could be addressed later once the\ud technology is ready for implementation. Finally, Panel members were encouraged to identify any other questions\ud which appeared to be missing from the initial list. For copy of questionnaire, see Annex 1: Delphi Round 1\ud Questionnaire.\ud Respondents were also asked to provide personal details to give some indication of their HTA experience and\ud specialist expertise. Analysis of responses demonstrated that SAFE Delphi panel members represent a highly\ud experienced, multidisciplinary international group of experts with the knowledge required to define which key\ud questions should be addressed in HTA reports on new prenatal genetic tests.\ud Delphi Responses\ud Responses were received from 77/90 (86%) of Panel members. These were analysed with a cut-off of 75%\ud (±3%) applied as an indicator of Panel consensus for all questions. Thus, any question which three out of four\ud respondents rated as essential or desirable was retained, whilst those not achieving this level of agreement were\ud provisionally excluded. In addition, mean scores were also calculated (excluding 0 = I have no basis for\ud judgement) for each question. A mean score >3.25 ± 0.05 was taken as an indication that the Panel had\ud identified a particular question as being of the highest priority to address in HTA

Topics: RJ
Publisher: University of Warwick
Year: 2005
OAI identifier: oai:wrap.warwick.ac.uk:128
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/128/... (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.