Assessment of a multimedia-based prospective method to support public deliberations on health technology design: participant survey findings and qualitative insights.

P Lehoux, J Jimenez-Pernett, F A Miller, B Williams-Jones

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

3citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

The Effectiveness of Adaptations for Online Remote Public Deliberation Across Three Continents: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2025
Article
Integrating citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in eastern Europe and central Asia: scoping study and future research priorities.Health research policy and systems · 2022
Article
Information needs of francophone health care professionals and the public with regard to medical assistance in dying in Quebec: a qualitative study.CMAJ open
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

P LehouxDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, University of Montreal, Institute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal (IRSPUM), University of Montreal Research Chair on Responsible Innovation in Health, Branch Centre-ville, P.O. Box 6128, Montreal, QC, H3C 3 J7, Canada. pascale.lehoux@umontreal.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-9482-1800

J Jimenez-PernettDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, University of Montreal, IRSPUM, Montreal, Canada.

F A MillerInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

B Williams-JonesDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Montreal, IRSPUM, Montreal, Canada.

Funding

CIHR MOP-119517

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUsing a combination of videos and online short stories, we conducted four face-to-face deliberative workshops in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) with members of the public who later joined additional participants in an online forum to discuss the social and ethical implications of prospective technologies. This paper presents the participants' appraisal of our intervention and provides novel qualitative insights into the use of videos and online tools in public deliberations.

methodsWe applied a mixed-method study design. A self-administered survey contained open- and close-ended items using a 5-level Likert-like scale. Absolute frequencies and proportions for the close-ended items were compiled. Qualitative data included field notes, the transcripts of the workshops and the participants' contributions to the online forum. The qualitative data were used to flesh out the survey data describing the participants' appraisal of: 1) the multimedia components of our intervention; 2) its deliberative face-to-face and online processes; and 3) its perceived effects.

resultsThirty-eight participants contributed to the workshops and 57 to the online forum. A total of 46 participants filled-in the survey, for a response rate of 73 % (46/63). The videos helped 96 % of the participants to understand the fictional technologies and the online scenarios helped 98 % to reflect about the issues raised. Up to 81 % considered the arguments of the other participants to be well thought-out. Nearly all participants felt comfortable sharing their ideas in both the face-to-face (89 %) and online environments (93 %), but 88 % preferred the face-to-face workshop. As a result of the intervention, 85 % reflected more about the pros and cons of technology and 94 % learned more about the way technologies may transform society.

conclusionsThis study confirms the methodological feasibility of a deliberative intervention whose originality lies in its use of videos and online scenarios. To increase deliberative depth and foster a strong engagement by all participants, face-to-face and online components need to be well integrated. Our findings suggest that online tools should be designed by considering, one the one hand, the participants' self-perceived ability to share written comments and, on the other hand, the ease with which other participants can respond to such contributions.

Indexed as

Biomedical TechnologyInventionsPublic OpinionAdultComprehensionFemaleHumansLearningMaleMultimediaPerceptionProblem SolvingProspective StudiesQuebecResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesEvaluationHealth innovationKnowledge transfer and exchangeOnline forumProspective analysesPublic involvementVideo-based deliberations

Identifiers

PMID27784317

DOI10.1186/s12913-016-1870-z

PMCPMC5081965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.