Abstract
Background The specific roles and responsibilities expected of leaders of consensus-based decision committees, such as grant peer review panels and guideline development panels, are not well-defined, which makes it difficult to train people to lead well. We aimed to explore, describe and define the roles, responsibilities, and leadership characteristics of leaders of meetings where the goal was to reach a consensus decision.
Methods We conducted a scoping review with thematic synthesis, guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review Methodology, and Arksey & O’Malley’s framework for scoping reviews as refined by Levac et al. We searched five bibliographic databases from January 2002-2023 in English: Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycInfo (EBSCO); Proquest Digital Dissertations and ABI-Inform. We searched grey literature in the fields of health science, biomedicine, education, psychology, management, law, ethics and policy. Abstracts and full-text articles were screened in duplicate to identify eligible studies; data were extracted regarding the roles, responsibilities and characteristics of consensus decision committee leaders. Themes were constructed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Results From 6732 electronic database records and 126 grey literature records, we included 24 articles and 16 websites. There were 166 unique statements extracted related to roles and responsibilities. We constructed 4 themes to describe the roles for leaders of consensus-based decision meetings: (1) organizer and/or resource manager, (2) facilitator, (3) adjudicator and, (4) administrator.
Conclusion Leaders of consensus committees assumed the roles of organiser and/or resource manager, facilitator, adjudicator and administrator. Better clarification of and training for the expected roles and responsibilities of leading consensus decisions are needed. Establishing the roles and responsibilities can inform a systematic process for evaluating the performance of leaders of consensus decision committees.
Competing Interest Statement
NM, SN and AM are Canadian Government employees (of CIHR) who contributed to this manuscript in the course of their regular employment. AM is responsible for co-ordinating the delivery of peer review for CIHR. KMK is Scientific Director for the CIHR Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. All other authors declare they have no competing interests.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a CIHR Research Operating Grant (Scientific Directors) held by KMK. The funder had no role in design and/or conduct of the review.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Contributions: CLA and MG contributed to the concept and design of the review. DG constructed the search strategy and performed the bibliographic database search. AL provided methods guidance on the grey literature search; MG performed the grey literature search with supervision from AL, CLA and DG. JSG provided methods guidance on thematic synthesis. PB provided methods guidance on defining consensus-based committees. NM, SN, AM, DM and KMK advised on background and approaches to research grant peer-review, and research funders’ perspectives. MG, ACVA, JYN, HK, AL and CLA screened records. MG, ACVA and CLA extracted data. MG, JSG and CLA synthesised the data. MG, ACVA, AL and CLA drafted the manuscript. All authors provided intellectual input, read and reviewed the manuscript, provided feedback on drafts, and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Support: This work was supported by a CIHR Research Operating Grant (Scientific Directors) held by Karim M Khan. The funder had no role in design and/or conduct of the review.
Data Availability
The data produced are available online at the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/K4MC7)
