ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2008
Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 107 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community participation and stakeholder engagement in determining health service coverage: A systematic review and framework synthesis to assess effectiveness.Journal of global health · 2023Pooled it
- What attributes should be included in a discrete choice experiment related to health technologies? A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014Pooled it
- Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Towards Evidence of Rigour in Empirical Deliberative Democratic Methods: Development and Piloting of the C-JuRI Framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Can the Development of Orphan Drugs Include Wider Patient Engagement? A Citizens' Jury to Explore a Promissory Notion.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- What should be publicly funded in the Colombian health system? A mixed methods study of citizens' perceptions.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Moving beyond the Court of Public Opinion: A Citizens' Jury Exploring the Public's Values around Funding Decisions for Ultra-Orphan Drugs.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Developing a Smart Home Technology Innovation for People With Physical and Mental Health Problems: Considerations and Recommendations.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Ethical and Social Values for Paediatric Health Technology Assessment and Drug Policy.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Patient-partner engagement at the Centre de recherche du CHUS in the Province of Québec, Canada: from an intuitive methodology to outreach after three years of implementation.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Investigating public values in health care priority - Chileans´ preference for national health care.BMC public health · 2021Article
- 'The problem is small enough, the problem is big enough': a qualitative study of health technology assessment and public policy on drug funding decisions for children.International journal for equity in health · 2020Article
- Patient and public involvement: Two sides of the same coin or different coins altogether?Bioethics · 2019Article
- Justice and public participation in universal health coverage: when is tiered coverage unfair and who should decide?Asian bioethics review · 2019Article
- Recommendations from Two Citizens' Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity.Obesity surgery · 2018Article
- Trade-offs, fairness, and funding for cancer drugs: key findings from a deliberative public engagement event in British Columbia, Canada.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Investigating the Extent to Which Patients Should Control Access to Patient Records for Research: A Deliberative Process Using Citizens' Juries.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
- What's Involved with Wanting to Be Involved? Comparing Expectations for Public Engagement in Health Policy across Research and Care Contexts.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2017Article
- CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the feasibility of using a citizens' jury to elicit public values on health technologies and to develop criteria for setting priorities for health technology assessment (HTA).
methodsSixteen individuals were selected from 1600 randomly sampled residents of the Capital Health Region in Alberta, Canada. They participated in a 2 (1/2) day jury which comprised presentations by 'expert witnesses', who represented innovators, patients, health-care policy-makers and clinicians, as well as a series of small and large group priority-setting exercises based on actual examples of technologies that had recently been considered for assessment by local and national HTA bodies. The session was audio-taped, and transcripts were independently reviewed by two researchers using content analytical techniques in order to ensure that no important concepts expressed by individual jurors were missed during group development of the final list of priority-setting criteria. Jurors evaluated the process by completing self-administered, semi-structured questionnaires at the end of the session. Responses were analysed using qualitative methods.
resultsThe jury identified 13 criteria, which they subsequently ranked in order of importance. The top two criteria included 'potential to benefit a number of people' and 'extends life with quality'. Based on feedback from questionnaires, jurors valued the opportunity to become engaged in such a process, and expressed interest in participating in future juries.
conclusionsCitizens' juries offer a feasible approach to involving the public in priority-setting for HTA. Furthermore, technologies that may benefit a number of people and improve quality of life appear to be of greatest importance to the public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.