Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37579393›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of health policy and management2023

How to Account for Asymmetries in Deliberative Dialogues Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study".

Jaime Jiménez-Pernett

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of health policy and management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Proposal for Addressing Bioethical Concerns Along the 10-Step Framework for Community Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Jaime Jiménez-PernettInternational Health Department, Andalusian School of Public Health, Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-9894-7133

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In health policy-making, various deliberative mechanisms can be used to engage the members of the public in exploring what might be a reasonable course of action. Scurr et al take power dynamics into consideration to analyse a deliberative dialogue involving stakeholders with diverse points of view. Given such asymmetries at play, the conclusions of deliberations could be biased. Scholars would benefit from guidance on designing and evaluating deliberative processes. This commentary aims to broadly reflect on the possible sources of power and information asymmetries in deliberative dialogues, and to bring the biographical resources approach to deal with such asymmetries.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingCommunity ParticipationHumansDeliberative MethodsEquityInequalitiesMeasurementPower ImbalancesPublic Engagement

Identifiers

PMID37579393
PMCPMC10425654

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.