Identifying approaches for synthesizing and summarizing information to support informed citizen deliberations in health policy: a scoping review

Abstract

Objective Public deliberations are an increasingly popular tool to engage citizens in the development of health policies and programmes. However, limited research has been conducted on how to best synthesize and summarize information on health policy issues for citizens. To begin to address this gap, our aim was to map the literature on the preparation of information to support informed citizen deliberations related to health policy issues. Methods We conducted a scoping review where two reviewers screened the results of electronic database searches, grey literature searches and hand searches of organizational websites to identify empirical studies, scholarly commentaries, and publicly available organizational documents focused on synthesizing and summarizing information to inform citizen deliberation about health policy issues. Two reviewers categorized each included document according to themes/topics of deliberation, purpose of deliberation and the form of deliberation, and developed a summary of the key findings related to synthesizing and summarizing information to support informed citizen deliberations. Results There was limited reporting about whether and how information was synthesized. Evidence was typically organized based on the source used (e.g. by comparing the views of stakeholders or experts) or according to the areas that policymakers need to consider when making decisions (e.g. benefits, harms, costs and stakeholder perspectives related to policy options). Information was presented primarily through written materials (e.g. briefs and brochures), audiovisual resources (e.g. videos or presentations from stakeholders), but some interactive presentation approaches were also identified (e.g. through interactive arts-based approaches). Conclusions The choice and framing of information to inform citizen deliberations about health policy can strongly influence their understanding of a policy issue, and has the potential to impact the discussions and recommendations that emerge from deliberations. Our review confirmed that there remains a dearth of literature describing methods of the preparation of information to inform citizen deliberations about health policy issues. This highlights the need for further exploration of optimal strategies for citizen-friendly approaches to synthesizing and summarizing information for deliberations.

Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A Citizens’ Jury

“…Details of the witnesses and the information they presented are in Table 1. Consistent with Citizens’ Jury methodology, these presentations were followed by juror discussions with each witness including some facilitated question and answer formats as well as small group discussions 15,17 …”

“…One method to engage the public in health policy processes, and which is also believed to increase the ecological validity of decisions made and build decision-making capacity among policymakers and the public, is the use of a Citizens' Jury. [14][15][16] A Citizens' Jury is an active approach 10 of engaging the public in deliberations on a range of topics across all sectors such as health, education, transport and industry, to craft thoughtful solutions to vexed or entrenched problems. 14,17 Using this method, a range of formal or informal deliberative processes and literature review material can be presented to Jury members.…”

Supporting women at average risk to make informed decisions about mammography when there is no “right” answer: a qualitative citizen deliberation study

“…13 To facilitate informed discussions, clear, balanced information on the topic of interest is provided to participants. 14…”

Integrating citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in eastern Europe and central Asia: scoping study and future research priorities

“…Numerous CE mechanisms have proliferated within health policy-making, with citizen juries and citizen panels being among the most widely adopted [ 16 ]. While these mechanisms differ in detail, almost all comprise a process which includes gathering a demographically representative group of citizens; presenting them with various forms of information on a topic; allowing them to discuss and deliberate, often involving the ability to question expert “witnesses”; and returning a final record of their conclusions [ 5 , 6 ].…”

“…Despite significant recent developments (and publications) pertaining to evidence-informed policy-making in LMICs [ 22 – 31 ], the views of citizens are consistently absent from such discussions. A recently published scoping review of CE in EIP returned examples based exclusively in HICs, with over four in five of them being based in one country—Canada [ 16 ].…”