Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39527811›Full record

ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2024

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.

Claudia Lucrecia Calderon Ramirez, Yanick Farmer, James Downar, Andrea Frolic, Lucie Opatrny, Diane Poirier, Gina Bravo, Audrey L'Espérance, Nathalie Gaucher, Antoine Payot and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2024. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2025
    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

18 authors.

Claudia Lucrecia Calderon RamirezUniversité de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7899-3535
Yanick FarmerUniversité du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0623-1179
James DownarDivision of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7479-1560
Andrea FrolicHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0613-2971
Lucie OpatrnyMcGill University Health Centre, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4982-9490
Diane PoirierCIUSSS du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7895-4570
Gina BravoUniversité de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9174-7836
Audrey L'EspéranceÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique (ENAP), Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8032-3624
Nathalie GaucherCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5997-2627
Antoine PayotUniversité de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2195-1062
Joseph DahineUniversité de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1975-8407
Peter TanuseputroDepartment of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4409-0795
Louis-Martin RousseauPolytechnique Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6949-6014
Vincent DumezUniversité de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9481-554X
Annie DescôteauxUniversité de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5875-3094
Clara DallaireUniversité de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2823-1601
Karell LaporteUniversité de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4693-2812
Marie-Eve BouthillierUniversité de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7156-057X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline democratic deliberation (ODD) may foster public engagement in new health strategies by providing opportunities for knowledge exchange between experts, policy makers, and the public. It can favor decision-making by generating new points of view and solutions to existing problems. Deliberation experts recommend gathering feedback from participants to optimize future implementation. However, this online modality has not been frequently evaluated.

objectiveThis study aims to (1) assess the quality of an ODD held in Quebec and Ontario, Canada, on the topic of COVID-19 triage protocols for access to critical care in an extreme pandemic context and (2) determine its transformative aspect according to the perceptions of participants.

methodsWe conducted a simultaneous ODD in Quebec and Ontario on May 28 and June 4, 2022, with a diversified target audience not working in the health care system. We used a thematic analysis for the transcripts of the deliberation and the written comments of the participants related to the quality of the process. Participants responded to a postdeliberation questionnaire to assess the quality of the ODD and identify changes in their perspectives on COVID-19 pandemic triage protocols after the deliberation exercise. Descriptive statistics were used. An index was calculated to determine equality of participation.

resultsThe ODD involved 47 diverse participants from the public (n=20, 43% from Quebec and n=27, 57% from Ontario). Five themes emerged: (1) process appreciation, (2) learning experience, (3) reflecting on the common good, (4) technological aspects, and (5) transformative aspects. A total of 46 participants responded to the questionnaire. Participants considered the quality of the ODD satisfactory in terms of process, information shared, reasoning, and videoconferencing. A total of 4 (80%) of 5 participants reported at least 1 change of perspective on some of the criteria and values discussed. Most participants reported that the online modality was accessible and user-friendly. We found low polarization when calculating equal participation. Improvements identified were measures to replace participants when unable to connect and optimization of time during discussions.

conclusionsOverall, the participants perceived the quality of ODD as satisfactory. Some participants self-reported a change of opinion after deliberation. The online modality may be an acceptable alternative for democratic deliberation but with some organizational adaptations.

Indexed as

clinical ethicsCOVID-19 triage or prioritizationcritical careonline democratic deliberationquality assessment

Identifiers

PMID39527811
PMCPMC11589492

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.