ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Deliberations on Government Spending Priorities: Listen to the People.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID pandemic's impact on health and financial well-being disproportionately affected low-income communities. Government safety net programs aim to improve equality of opportunity and might reduce such disproportionate effects but face constraints of limited resources.
objectiveTo identify the social spending priorities of low-income individuals through informed group deliberations using a structured budget tool.
designThe CHoosing All Together (CHAT) exercise was used to engage low-income persons in informed deliberations to set priorities for social programs within a limited budget.
participantsTwenty-one English-speaking and five Spanish-speaking groups composed of low-income individuals. APPROACH: Participants first made individual spending choices, then deliberated as a group to jointly allocate resources, and finally repeated individual choices. Deliberations were audio recorded and analyzed to understand reasoning. KEY
resultsBefore group deliberations, individuals allocated at least some resources for food (89%), internet access (82%), transportation (80%), post-high school education (74%), income supplements (69%), employment assistance (68%), PreK-HS education (67%), housing (66%), climate protection (65%), and legal assistance (42%). Only health insurance and neighborhood were chosen by most individuals at the highest available spending level. After group deliberations, PreK-HS education was also selected at the highest possible level by most individuals. A majority of groups prioritized health insurance, neighborhood, PreK-HS education, climate protection, and internet access at the highest level. Deliberations emphasized basic needs, like food and health insurance, concern for the future (education), and learning from disasters (internet and climate).
conclusionsThe priorities and reason-giving of people most affected by government spending on social determinants of health provide valuable insights and justification for policy-makers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41981375What 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.