Informing Public Health Policy Through Deliberative Public Engagement: Perceived Impact on Participants and Citizen–Government Relations

Abstract

Background: Deliberative public engagement has been proposed for policy development, where issues are complex and there are diverse public perspectives and low awareness of competing issues. Scholars suggest a range of potential outcomes for citizens and government agencies from involvement in such processes. Few studies have examined outcomes from the perspective of citizen participants in deliberative processes. Aims: To examine participant perceptions of their involvement in and outcomes of a deliberative engagement exercise. Method: A case study using semistructured interviews was conducted with participants following a deliberative forum on biobanking. Results: From their involvement in the deliberative exercise, participants described transformations in their knowledge and beliefs about the policy issues. They reported being more informed to the extent of having confidence to educate others and effectively contribute to public policy development. They had developed greater trust in government policymakers who they believed would take reasonable account of their recommendations. Conclusion: We conclude that the participants were satisfied with the outcomes of the deliberative public engagement process and viewed it as an effective means of citizen involvement in public policy development. Particularly for citizens who participate in deliberative processes, such processes may promote active citizenship, empower citizens to undertake representative and educative roles, and improve relations between citizens and government agencies. Actions taken by policymakers subsequent to the deliberative exercise, whereby the majority of citizen recommendations were incorporated in the policy developed, may have contributed to participants holding sustained levels of trust in the commissioning government agency.

Community Engagement for Big Epidemiology: Deliberative Democracy as a Tool

“…The aim was not to achieve a randomly selected, unbiased sample, one of the mainstays of epidemiological research, but rather to hear varied Tasmanian voices. A similar deliberative democracy event on biobanking was conducted in Western Australia and informed our deliberation [ 31 , 47 , 48 ]. However, that event reported a “lack of socio-demographic diversity in our participants” [ 47 ], and it was in order to address this limitation that the recruitment strategy employed in the current study was devised.…”

Engaging older adults in healthcare research and planning: a realist synthesis

“…The amount of information provided to participants needs to be considered, as a lack of information reduces engagement opportunities [ 82 ]. Information provided to older adults and their caregivers should be unbiased [ 83 ] and accessible in terms of language, cultural preferences, education level and age associated decline [ 31 , 58 ].…”

What’s Involved with Wanting to Be Involved? Comparing Expectations for Public Engagement in Health Policy across Research and Care Contexts

“…For example, Knight and Barnett (2010) found that higher political efficacy, defined as “people's belief that they can make demands of governing systems and get adequate responses from these systems,” is associated with preferences that experts make decisions about science governance. There is also a literature examining engagement exercises as a strategy for building public trust, though there is some debate about its effectiveness ( Molster et al 2013 ; Petts 2008 ; Wynne 2006 ). Thus, it remains unclear whether trust is an important influence on preferences for involvement in health policy.…”