ArticlePloS one2021
Public participation in crisis policymaking. How 30,000 Dutch citizens advised their government on relaxing COVID-19 lockdown measures.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 76 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using XGBoost and SHAP to explain citizens' differences in policy support for reimposing COVID-19 measures in the Netherlands.Quality & quantity · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The public's considerations about implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions to manage a novel COVID-19 epidemic.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Review
- Voices of society: the emergence of civil-society practices aiming to engage in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Public Preferences for Introducing a COVID-19 Certificate: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Netherlands.Applied health economics and health policy · 2023Article
- Healthcare Workers' Attitudes towards Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Measuring social resilience in cities: An exploratory spatio-temporal analysis of activity routines in urban spaces during Covid-19.Cities (London, England) · 2023Article
- The impact of government pandemic policies on the vulnerability of healthcare workers to SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality in Jakarta Province, Indonesia.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Stepping into the shoes of the policy maker: Results of a Participatory Value Evaluation for the Dutch long term COVID-19 strategy.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2022Article
- The Ecology of Engagement: Fostering cooperative efforts in health with patients and communities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Review
- Patient and public involvement in the build-up of COVID-19 testing in Sweden.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- COVID-19 and Biomedical Experts: When Epistemic Authority is (Probably) Not Enough.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
- Discussing the Effect of Students' Crisis Awareness on Emotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Perspective of Trust.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Integrating Gender-Based Analysis Plus into Policy Responses to COVID-19: Lived Experiences of Lockdown in British Columbia, Canada.Social politics · 2022Article
- What values should an agent align with?: An empirical comparison of general and context-specific values.Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems · 2022Article
- Patient and public engagement in decision-making regarding infectious disease outbreak management: an integrative review.BMJ global health · 2021Review
- Acceptability of Nonpharmaceutical Interventions to Prevent the Risk of COVID-19 Infection in the United States.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following the outbreak of COVID-19, governments took unprecedented measures to curb the spread of the virus. Public participation in decisions regarding (the relaxation of) these measures has been notably absent, despite being recommended in the literature. Here, as one of the exceptions, we report the results of 30,000 citizens advising the government on eight different possibilities for relaxing lockdown measures in the Netherlands. By making use of the novel method Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE), participants were asked to recommend which out of the eight options they prefer to be relaxed. Participants received information regarding the societal impacts of each relaxation option, such as the impact of the option on the healthcare system. The results of the PVE informed policymakers about people's preferences regarding (the impacts of) the relaxation options. For instance, we established that participants assign an equal value to a reduction of 100 deaths among citizens younger than 70 years and a reduction of 168 deaths among citizens older than 70 years. We show how these preferences can be used to rank options in terms of desirability. Citizens advised to relax lockdown measures, but not to the point at which the healthcare system becomes heavily overloaded. We found wide support for prioritising the re-opening of contact professions. Conversely, participants disfavoured options to relax restrictions for specific groups of citizens as they found it important that decisions lead to "unity" and not to "division". 80% of the participants state that PVE is a good method to let citizens participate in government decision-making on relaxing lockdown measures. Participants felt that they could express a nuanced opinion, communicate arguments, and appreciated the opportunity to evaluate relaxation options in comparison to each other while being informed about the consequences of each option. This increased their awareness of the dilemmas the government faces.
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.