ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2026
Towards Evidence of Rigour in Empirical Deliberative Democratic Methods: Development and Piloting of the C-JuRI Framework.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDeliberative democratic methods are increasingly being used to involve the public in health policy decision-making. These methods are rooted in deliberative democratic theory, which proposes the methods as democratic, inclusive and relevant ways to involve the public in policy decisions. Many practitioners have created methods for evaluating aspects of deliberative democratic engagement, but there are few practical guidelines for evaluating the quality of deliberative democratic processes as a whole. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a framework for evaluating the quality of Citizens' Juries based on the OECD's Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes.
methodsWe developed the Citizens' Jury Rigour and Improvement (C-JuRI) framework based on the OECD's criteria for evaluating deliberative democratic processes. We justified each criterion with respect to the theoretical literature on deliberative democracy. We describe the process of piloting the framework on the artificial intelligence (AI) in Healthcare Jury-the first national Citizens' Jury on using AI in healthcare.
resultsThe C-JuRI framework was an effective tool for evaluating the AI in Healthcare Jury. Using the framework, we identified and reported on several strengths of the AI in Healthcare jury, as well as some opportunities to make changes to future processes to better work towards a deliberative democratic ideal. Post hoc additions to the framework may have assisted us in identifying more opportunities for improvement.
conclusionThe C-JuRI framework is a useful tool for researchers and practitioners aiming to design high-quality Citizens' Jury processes and for policymakers assessing the quality and rigour of deliberative democratic processes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This framework is designed to evaluate the quality of initiatives to involve the public in decision-making. The framework was piloted on a jury in which 28 members of the public deliberated about the use of AI in healthcare.
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.