Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting

Abelson, Julia; Eyles, John; McLeod, Chris; Collins, Patricia; McMullan, Colin; Forest, Pierre Gerlier

doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(03)00048-4

Cited by 200 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

146

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this synthesis, we found that the mechanism of political commitment works when the health problem identified affects the common good, when it is considered a priority of the users (Crawford et al 2003;Carman et al 2015) and when the identified health problem is clear and specific (Abelson et al 2003;Crawford et al 2003). Intangible outcomes of public participation brought about by broadly defined issues promote the notion that nothing comes out of it.…”

Section: Context Of Political Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Several studies show that public participation indeed increased the knowledge on the topic and helped the participants realise the processes involved (Abelson et al 2003;Goold et al 2005;Guttman et al 2008;Carman et al 2015). However, in ethical decision-making in health policy, Mullen (2008) doubts if the public participation process increases the defensibility of decisions.…”

Section: Outcome Of Political Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in ethical decision-making in health policy, Mullen (2008) doubts if the public participation process increases the defensibility of decisions. Further, although Molster et al (2013) argue that complete consensus is unlikely, it is possible that participants mutually agree, especially when the issues are clear and specific (Abelson et al 2003;Boivin et al 2014). The role of mediating bodies contributes significantly for the public to influence policy (Tenbensel 2002;Li et al 2015), as they enhance the rationality and legitimacy of the decision.…”

Section: Outcome Of Political Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: a realist synthesis

Pagatpatan

Ward

2017

Aust. J. Prim. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Although researchers argue for the importance of involving the public in developing health policy, there has been little focus on central research questions -such as what techniques of public participation work, in what circumstances, and why. This paper presents a realist synthesis which identifies and explains the underlying mechanisms and specific contextual factors that lead to effective public participation in health policy and planning. Peer-reviewed, English language literature was searched, which resulted in 77 articles for review and synthesis. This synthesis uncovered the underlying mechanism of 'political commitment' that generates public participation effectiveness. The other three possible underlying mechanisms, namely: 'partnership synergy', 'inclusiveness' and 'deliberativeness', were found to potentially provide further explanation on public participation effectiveness for health policy and planning. The findings of this review provide evidence that can be useful to health practitioners and decision-makers to actively involve the public when drafting public health policies and programs and, more importantly, guide them in deciding which strategies to best employ for which contexts.

show abstract

Section: Context Of Political Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Outcome Of Political Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Outcome Of Political Commitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: a realist synthesis

Pagatpatan

Ward

2017

Aust. J. Prim. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Mitton, Smith, Peacock, Evoy, & Abelson 2009;OMara-Eves et al 2013). A Cochrane review of consumer involvement in healthcare policy (Nilsen, Myrhaug, Johansen, Oliver, & Oxman 2006) identified one trial where two deliberative techniques were compared to a consultative approach (Abelson et al 2003a). No definitive conclusions could be reached due to methodological limitations (Nilsen, Myrhaug, Johansen, Oliver, & Oxman 2006).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations?

Wortley

Street

Lipworth

et al. 2016

JHOM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Public engagement in health technology assessment (HTA) is increasingly considered crucial for good decision-making. Determining the "right" type of engagement activity is key in achieving the appropriate consideration of public values. Little is known about the factors that determine how HTA organizations decide on their method of public engagement, and there are a number of possible factors that might shape these decisions. This paper seeks to understand the potential drivers of public engagement choice from an organizational perspective.Design/Methodology/: The published HTA literature is reviewed alongside existing frameworks of public engagement in order to elucidate key factors influencing the choice of public engagement process undertaken by HTA organizations. A conceptual framework is then developed to illustrate the factors identified from the literature that appear to influence public engagement choice.Findings: Determining the type of public engagement to be undertaken in HTA is based on multiple factors, some of which are not always explicitly acknowledged. These factors include: perceived complexity of the policymaking issue, perceived impact of the decision, transparency and opportunities for public involvement in governance, as well as time and resource constraints. The influence of these factors varies depending on the context, indicating that a one size fits all approach to public engagement may not be effective.Originality/value: Awareness of the various factors that might influence the type of public engagement undertaken would enable decision-makers to reflect on their choices and be more accountable and transparent about their choice of engagement process in eliciting public values and preferences in a HTA organization.2

show abstract

“…The spectrum of deliberative approaches used in relation to health care issues includes national processes involving citizens in technology appraisal (Einsiedel, 2002), processes involving local residents in setting health care priorities 5 (Abelson et al 2003a;Pickard 1998), through to shared decision-making in patient encounters in general practice (Gwyn & Elwyn, 1999). Central to all these deliberative processes is the reconstruction of the relationship between epistemic claims and democratic accountability through face-to-face deliberation (Bohman, 1999;Pellizzoni, 1999;2001).…”

Section: Deliberation Expertise and Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’: citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process

Davies

Burgess

2004

Health & Place

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents analysis of citizen encounters with specialists in a deliberative process, called Deliberative Mapping, which explored options for addressing the shortage of organs for transplantation in the UK. There is a rich theoretical literature about the extent to which citizens are competent to question the knowledge claims of specialists in complex decision-making processes, suggesting the trustworthiness of scientific expertise will depend on the qualities of social interaction in face-to-face dialogue, but little empirical analysis of specific encounters. This paper presents evidence of how citizens located specialist expertise in making judgements about the legitimacy and credibility of specialist knowledge claims, in ways that reflect differences in epistemic procedures valued by the panels of men and women in this process.

show abstract

Does deliberation make a difference? Results from a citizens panel study of health goals priority setting

Cited by 200 publications

References 20 publications

Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: a realist synthesis

Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: a realist synthesis

What factors determine the choice of public engagement undertaken by health technology assessment decision-making organizations?

Challenging the ‘view from nowhere’: citizen reflections on specialist expertise in a deliberative process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About