ReviewBMJ open2014
Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens' juries.
Review in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring Public Preferences for Health Outcomes and Expenditures in a Context of Healthcare Resource Re-Allocation.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Trial
- Malleable Morality: Re-Shaping Moral Judgments in Health Policymaking.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2023Article
- CHAT SA: Modification of a Public Engagement Tool for Priority Setting for a South African Rural Context.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Deliberative engagement methods on health care priority-setting in a rural South African community.Health policy and planning · 2021Article
- Exploring women's priorities for the potential consequences of a gestational diabetes diagnosis: A pilot community jury.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Article
- Integrating public preferences into national reimbursement decisions: a descriptive comparison of approaches in Belgium and New Zealand.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- An Australian community jury to consider case-finding for dementia: Differences between informed community preferences and general practice guidelines.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2019Article
- Article
- Creating sustainable health care systems.Journal of health organization and management · 2019Article
- Experience-based utility and own health state valuation for a health state classification system: why and how to do it.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018Article
- Recommendations from Two Citizens' Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity.Obesity surgery · 2018Article
- The association between misperceptions around weight status and quality of life in adults in Australia.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2017Article
- Preferences for engagement in health technology assessment decision-making: a nominal group technique with members of the public.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2015Article
- Article
- Public participation: methods matter; a response to Boaz et al.International journal of health policy and management · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal approach to engage the public in healthcare decision-making is unclear. Approaches range from deliberative citizens' juries to large population surveys using discrete choice experiments. This study promotes public engagement and quantifies preferences in two key areas of relevance to the industry partners to identify which approach is most informative for informing healthcare policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The key areas identified are optimising appropriate use of emergency care and prioritising patients for bariatric surgery. Three citizens' juries will be undertaken-two in Queensland to address each key issue and one in Adelaide to repeat the bariatric surgery deliberations with a different sample. Jurors will be given a choice experiment before the jury, immediately following the jury and at approximately 1 month following the jury. Control groups for each jury will be given the choice experiment at the same time points to test for convergence. Samples of healthcare decision-makers will be given the choice experiment as will two large samples of the population. Jury and control group participants will be recruited from the Queensland electoral roll and newspaper advertisements in Adelaide. Population samples will be recruited from a large research panel. Jury processes will be analysed qualitatively and choice experiments will be analysed using multinomial logit models and its more generalised forms. Comparisons between preferences across jurors predeliberation and postdeliberation, control participants, healthcare decision-makers and the general public will be undertaken for each key issue. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (MED/10/12/HREC). Findings of the juries and the choice experiments will be reported at a workshop of stakeholders to be held in 2015, in reports and in peer reviewed journals.
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.