ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2014
Assessing the impact of deliberative processes on the views of participants: is it 'in one ear and out the other'?
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Moral and Social Values in Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design Comment on "Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes for Health Benefit Package Design - Part II: A Practical Guide".International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- 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
- The Dutch Citizen Forum on Public Reimbursement of Healthcare: A Qualitative Analysis of Opinion Change.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Long-term views on chronic kidney disease research priorities among stakeholders engaged in a priority-setting partnership: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
- 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
- Patient-centred care and patient and public involvement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterest in citizens' juries for eliciting the views of the public to inform coverage decisions on new health technologies has grown. However, evaluative information, particularly regarding their short- and/or longer-term impact on participants' views is limited. As citizens' juries can be resource intensive, such information is required to make 'evidence-based' decisions about their use.
objectivesTo assess the impact of citizens' juries on participants' preferences for the distribution of health care across populations over time. SETTING AND
participantsTwo citizens' juries, involving a different representative sample of the public, were held. Participants completed identical questionnaires before (T1), directly after (T2) and 6 weeks following the jury (T3). Questionnaires comprised rating, ranking and choice-based questions related to four characteristics of competing patient populations (age, current health, life expectancy without treatment and health gain resulting from an intervention). Semi-structured telephone interviews were also conducted to explore the impact of the jury on participants' distributive preferences. Changes in responses to the self-administered survey over the three time points were assessed quantitatively, while interview questions were analysed using qualitative techniques.
resultsNo significant differences in responses to rating questions were observed. Pre/post-jury changes in the rankings of two factors were statistically significant in one of the juries. However, in both juries, T1-T2 changes in responses to several of the choice-based questions reached statistical significance. The number was lower between T2 and T3, suggesting that jurors retained their views. According to findings from the interviews, jurors' views changed or were clarified through participation in the jury.
conclusionsThere appears to be evidence suggesting that the views of individuals who participate in citizens' juries change as a result of the experience, and those 'informed' views are sustained.
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.