ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2025
Deliberating at a Distance: Evaluating the Feasibility of a Fully Virtual CHAT Exercise Among Low-Income Communities.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deliberations on Government Spending Priorities: Listen to the People.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- 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 · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlongside software developers, our community-academic partnership adapted an exercise designed for participatory priority setting to engage low-income community members in online deliberations about health and welfare spending priorities. This study evaluated the feasibility and quality of a fully virtual deliberative exercise using an adapted Choosing All Together (CHAT) tool among low-income community members.
methodsTwenty-one groups including 128 low-income individuals diverse in age, household size, race/ethnicity and urbanicity used an online version of the CHAT exercise. Sessions included both English- and Spanish-speaking participants. Pre- and post-CHAT surveys assessed participant experiences and views of online public deliberations.
resultsMean item and scale scores (on a 0-4 Likert scale, where 0 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree) demonstrated that online use of the CHAT exercise was rated as enjoyable (3.4) and easy to do (3.2). Participants rated the information and choices provided as sufficient (3.4), with most participants agreeing that the choices offered in the deliberation were realistic (3.4) and believable (3.4). Participants generally thought they had enough information (2.4). The view of deliberation scale was scored (3.5), showing deliberative quality was rated highly. Participants agreed they gained an understanding of the arguments that opposed their own (3.2), that they had lots of chances to share their views (3.7) and that their views were considered (3.5). Some (2.8) stated that a few people dominated the discussion. DISCUSSION: Virtual modes of engagement could enable greater group heterogeneity, the participation of less mobile and more remote persons. Online deliberations added increased comfort and convenience for participants. Many participants stated that they expect and prefer online research participation, demonstrating that Covid may have shifted the paradigm. Participants indicated some technology problems, but these did not hinder participation as demonstrated by favourable mean item scores.
conclusionParticipants found the online CHAT deliberation easy and enjoyable and felt that the choices and information provided to them were sufficient. Despite technological problems, virtual modes of deliberation appear to be well-received by participants, adding comfort and convenience. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: DECIDERS, a steering committee of community partners, co-created the virtual CHAT game and guided its design. Participants shared their stories and provided feedback on the virtual experience, informing both the evaluation and interpretation of the findings.
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.