ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017
CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Should women aged 70-74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries.BMJ open · 2018Trial
- Genomic Newborn Screening: Verdict From an Australian Citizens' Jury.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- Public funding for mitochondrial donation: An Australian public deliberation.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Exploring Ways to Reduce Heavy Drinking by Increasing Hope Among Midlife Women in Australia: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Reducing Heavy Drinking Through the "Sober Curious" Movement in Australia: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Societal views on using risk-based innovations to inform cancer screening and referral policies: findings from three community juries.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Setting Primary Health and Social Care Priorities Using a Deliberative Democratic Participatory Approach.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Placing conditions on sharing general practice data for research: Recommendations from two community juries.International journal of population data science · 2025Article
- Older people's perspectives on frailty screening in primary care settings - a citizens' jury study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Strategies for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health policy development: A scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Public values to guide childhood vaccination mandates: A report on four Australian community juries.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs.BMC public health · 2023Article
- A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Sharing administrative health data with private industry: A report on two citizens' juries.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A Citizens' Jury.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Priority allocation of pandemic influenza vaccines in Australia - Recommendations of 3 community juries.Vaccine · 2021Article
- Using a Deliberative Poll on breast cancer screening to assess and improve the decision quality of laypeople.PloS one · 2021Article
- Using a citizens' jury approach to determine a good nutrition resource for pregnant women.Public health nutrition · 2020Article
- Community perspectives on the benefits and risks of technologically enhanced communicable disease surveillance systems: a report on four community juries.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Using a nominal group technique to approach consensus on a resilience intervention for smoking cessation in a lower socioeconomic population.BMC public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOpportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards.
designUsing the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting.
resultsCJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38).
conclusionsCurrently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.
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.