Background Governments use a variety of processes to incorporate public perspectives into policymaking, but few studies have evaluated these processes from participants' point of view.Objective The objective of this study was twofold: to understand the perspectives of selected stakeholders with regard to involvement processes used by Australian Advisory Committees to engage the public and patients; and to identify barriers and facilitators to participation.Design Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of different stakeholder groups involved in health technology funding decisions in Australia. Data were collected and analysed using a theoretical framework created by Rowe and Frewer, but adapted to more fully acknowledge issues of power and influence.
ObjectivesThe terminology used to describe community participation in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is contested and frequently confusing. The terms patients, consumers, public, lay members, customers, users, citizens, and others have been variously used, sometimes interchangeably. Clarity in the use of terms and goals for including the different groups is needed to mitigate existing inconsistencies in the application of patient and public involvement (PPI) across HTA processes around the world.MethodsWe drew from a range of literature sources in order to conceptualize (i) an operational definition for the “public” and other stakeholders in the context of HTA and (ii) possible goals for their involvement. Draft definitions were tested and refined in an iterative consensus-building process with stakeholders from around the world.ResultsThe goals, terminology, interests, and roles for PPI in HTA processes were clarified. The research provides rationales for why the role of the public should be distinguished from that of patients, their families, and caregivers. A definition for the public in the context of HTA was developed: A community member who holds the public interest and has no commercial, personal, or professional interest in the HTA processConclusionsThere are two distinct aspects to the interests held by the public which should be explicitly included in the HTA process: the first lies in ensuring democratic accountability and the second in recognising the importance of including public values in decision making.
Objective: Including and prioritising community voice in policy development means policy is more likely to reflect community values and priorities. This project trialled and evaluated a storyboard approach in a deliberative community forum to engage Australian Aboriginal people in health policy priority setting.
Methods: The forum was co‐constructed with two Aboriginal community‐controlled organisations. A circle storyboard was used to centre Aboriginal community knowledge and values and encourage the group to engage with broader perspectives and evidence. The forum asked a diverse (descriptively representative) group of Aboriginal people in a rural town what governments should do to support the wellbeing of children and youth, particularly to encourage them to eat well and be active.
Results: The storyboard provided a tactile device to allow shared stories and identification of community issues. The group identified policies they believed governments should prioritise, including strategies to combat racism and provide local supports and outlets for young people.
Conclusions: An informed deliberative storyboard approach offers a novel way of engaging with Aboriginal communities in a culturally appropriate and inclusive manner.
Implications for public health: The identification of racism as a major issue of concern in preventing children from living healthy lifestyles highlights the need for policy responses in this area.
After the embargo period via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement
In all cases accepted manuscripts should: link to the formal publication via its DOI bear a CC-BY-NC-ND licensethis is easy to do if aggregated with other manuscripts, for example in a repository or other site, be shared in alignment with our hosting policy not be added to or enhanced in any way to appear more like, or to substitute for, the published journal article
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.