Patients generated 280 decision-making facilitators (range of 26 to 42 per panel).
During this meeting, patients generated 35 responses that reflected their thinking about medication decision-making facilitators.
The patients who participated in this meeting generated a list of 26 responses representing their views about medication decision-making facilitators.
The votes reflecting these priorities were tabulated across patients in each NGT panel to determine the perceived relative influence of medication decision-making facilitators and the level of agreement among patients regarding these perceptions.
Patients in this group generated 38 responses reflecting their views of potential medication decision-making facilitators and subsequently endorsed 14 of these as relatively more influential than others (Fig. 2b; see Additional file 6 for more details).
Rescaled values expressing the level of agreement or consistency with which patients within panels independently agreed in their selections of the three most influential decision-making facilitators ranged from 33%% for African-American panels (panels 3 and 4) and Hispanic panel 1 to 60 % for Caucasian panel 1 (Table 2).
The results from the first NGT meeting indicate that 4 of the 16 medication decision-making facilitators were endorsed as being influential by multiple patients and were assigned 34 (63 %) of the 54 available weighted votes (Fig. 1; see Additional file 1 for more details).
In line with the questions in the interview guide, the first author analyzed the 2008 transcripts to draw out themes relating to: the methods, tools, skills and resources used or needed to bring evidence into decision making; the facilitators and barriers of EIDM activities; the EIDM strategic initiative; and the organizational context of the change.
Integrated working in relation to communication, information transfer and decision making was a facilitator for cross-boundary, team and informational continuity of care.
Participants were asked to describe their understanding of academic medicine, interests in pursing academic careers, timing and factors shaping the decision making process, barriers and facilitators to entering academia, and suggestions for increasing diversity.
Interview schedules covered choices, barriers, and facilitators in decision making; cultural, religious, and spiritual beliefs and practices; and dilemmas, consequences, and advice.
