Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38090788›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Assessing Facilitator Fidelity to Principles of Public Deliberation: Tutorial.

Claire Draucker, Andrés Carrión, Mary A Ott, Amelia Knopf

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Claire DrauckerSchool of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9844-351X
Andrés CarriónSchool of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8913-6905
Mary A OttDepartment of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1347-2480
Amelia KnopfSchool of Nursing, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2557-4556
Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Public deliberation, or deliberative democracy, is a method used to elicit informed perspectives and justifiable solutions to ethically fraught or contentious issues that affect multiple stakeholder groups with conflicting interests. Deliberative events bring together stakeholders (deliberants) who are provided with empirical evidence on the central issue or concern and then asked to discuss the evidence, consider the issue from a societal perspective, and collectively work toward a justifiable resolution. There is increasing interest in this method, which warrants clear guidance for evaluating the quality of its use in research. Most of the existing literature on measuring deliberation quality emphasizes the quality of deliberants' inputs (eg, engagement and evidence of compromise) during deliberative sessions. Fewer researchers have framed quality in terms of facilitator inputs, and these researchers tend to examine inputs that are consistent with generic group processes. The theory, process, and purpose of public deliberation, however, are distinct from those of focus groups or other group-based discussions and warrant a mechanism for measuring quality in terms of facilitator fidelity to the principles and processes of deliberative democracy. In our public deliberation on ethical conflicts in minor consent for biomedical HIV prevention research, we assessed facilitator fidelity to these principles and processes because we believe that such assessments serve as a component of a comprehensive evaluation of overall deliberation quality. We examined verbatim facilitator remarks in the deliberation transcripts and determined whether they aligned with the 6 principles of public deliberation: equal participation, respect for the opinions of others, adoption of a societal perspective, reasoned justification of ideas, expression of diverse opinions, and compromise or movement toward consensus. In this tutorial, we describe the development of a blueprint to guide researchers in assessing facilitator fidelity, share 3 templates that will assist them in the task, and describe the results of our assessment of facilitator fidelity in 1 of the 4 sites in which we conducted deliberations.

Indexed as

bioethicsbiomedicalcodingdeliberative democracyengagementethicalethical conflictethicsevaluationHIVHIV preventionHIV researchprocesspublic deliberationtheorytutorial

Identifiers

PMID38090788
PMCPMC10753414
OpenAlexW4387621345

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.