ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2019
Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approaches for community intervention and research priority setting to reduce health inequalities: a scoping review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Deliberating at a Distance: Evaluating the Feasibility of a Fully Virtual CHAT Exercise Among Low-Income Communities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Assessing the Quality of an Online Democratic Deliberation on COVID-19 Pandemic Triage Protocols for Access to Critical Care in an Extreme Pandemic Context: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of participatory medicine · 2024Article
- Assessing Facilitator Fidelity to Principles of Public Deliberation: Tutorial.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Access to novel drugs and therapeutics for children and youth: Eliciting citizens' values to inform public funding decisions.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- How to Account for Asymmetries in Deliberative Dialogues Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study".International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- What works in engaging communities? Prioritising nutrition interventions in Burkina Faso, Ghana and South Africa.PloS one · 2023Article
- Public Deliberation Process on Patient Perspectives on Health Information Sharing: Evaluative Descriptive Study.JMIR cancer · 2022Article
- Testing a deliberative democracy method with citizens of African ancestry to weigh pros and cons of targeted screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- How Would Low-Income Communities Prioritize Medicaid Spending?Journal of health politics, policy and law · 2020Article
- Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextEngaging underrepresented communities in health research priority setting could make the scientific agenda more equitable and more responsive to their needs.
objectiveEvaluate democratic deliberations engaging minority and underserved communities in setting health research priorities.
methodsParticipants from underrepresented communities throughout Michigan (47 groups, n = 519) engaged in structured deliberations about health research priorities in professionally facilitated groups. We evaluated some aspects of the structure, process, and outcomes of deliberations, including representation, equality of participation, participants' views of deliberations, and the impact of group deliberations on individual participants' knowledge, attitudes, and points of view. Follow-up interviews elicited richer descriptions of these and also explored later effects on deliberators.
resultsDeliberators (age 18-88 years) overrepresented minority groups. Participation in discussions was well distributed. Deliberators improved their knowledge about disparities, but not about health research. Participants, on average, supported using their group's decision to inform decision makers and would trust a process like this to inform funding decisions. Views of deliberations were the strongest predictor of these outcomes. Follow-up interviews revealed deliberators were particularly struck by their experience hearing and understanding other points of view, sometimes surprised at the group's ability to reach agreement, and occasionally activated to volunteer or advocate.
conclusionsDeliberations using a structured group exercise to engage minority and underserved community members in setting health research priorities met some important criteria for a fair, credible process that could inform policy. Deliberations appeared to change some opinions, improved some knowledge, and were judged by participants worth using to inform policymakers.
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.