ArticleJournal of participatory medicine2025
The Effectiveness of Adaptations for Online Remote Public Deliberation Across Three Continents: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of participatory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Public deliberation is a qualitative research method that has successfully been used to solicit laypeople's perspectives on health ethics topics, but it remains unclear whether this traditionally in-person method can be translated to the online context. The MindKind Study conducted public deliberation sessions to gauge the concerns and aspirations of young people in India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom with regard to a prospective mental health databank. This paper details our adaptations to and evaluation of the public deliberation method in an online context, especially in the presence of a digital divide. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of online public deliberation and share emerging learnings in a remote, disseminated qualitative research context. Methods: We convened 2-hour structured deliberation sessions over an online video conferencing platform (Zoom). We provided participants with multimedia informational materials describing different ways to manage mental health data. We analyzed the quality of online public deliberation in variable resource settings on the basis of (1) equal participation, (2) respect for the opinions of others, (3) adoption of a societal perspective, and (4) reasoned justification of ideas. To assess the depth of comprehension of the informational materials, we used qualitative data that pertained directly to the materials provided. Results: The sessions were broadly of high quality. Some sessions were affected by an unstable internet connection and subsequent multimodal participation, complicating our ability to perform a quality assessment. English-speaking participants displayed a deep understanding of complex informational materials. We found that participants were particularly sensitive to linguistic and semiotic choices in the informational materials. A more fundamental barrier to understanding was encountered by participants who used materials translated from English. Conclusions: Although online public deliberation may have quality outcomes similar to those of in-person public deliberation, researchers who use remote methods should plan for technological and linguistic barriers when working with a multinational population. Our recommendations to researchers include budgetary planning, logistical considerations, and ensuring participants' psychological safety.
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.