Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration: Evaluating Effectiveness and Eliciting Public Views on Use of Evidence - Final Report

Carman, Kristin L.; Maurer, Maureen; Mallery, Coretta; Wang, Grace; Garfinkel, Steven; Richmond, Jennifer; Gilmore, Dierdre; Windham, Amy; Yang, Manshu; Mangrum, Rikki; Ginsburg, Marge; Sofaer, Shoshanna; Fernandez, Jessica; Gold, Marthe R.; Pathak-Sen, Ela; Davies, Todd; Siu, Alice; Fishkin, James S.; Rosenberg, Mark W.; Fratto, Allison

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3123559

Cited by 12 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additional details about these case studies are available elsewhere. 31 equal participation and expression of opposing views while remaining impartial. 31 CD participants discussed both case study parts during the first session.…”

Section: Use Of Content Experts For Antibiotic-related Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Details about each deliberative method and the overall RCT are reported elsewhere. 30,31,[35][36][37][38] All authors were part of the original team that conducted the Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration. For this article, we analyzed pre-and postdeliberation surveys and transcripts from the two deliberative methods that discussed antibiotic overuse-Citizens' Panel (CP) and Community Deliberation (CD).…”

Section: Me Thodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An informed public's views on reducing antibiotic overuse

Richmond

Mangrum

Wang

et al. 2019

Health Services Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To understand public attitudes about and recommendations to address antibiotic overuse by employing public deliberation (a method for eliciting informed input on value‐laden issues). Data Sources/Study Setting Participants in 24 Community Deliberation groups (CD; n = 263), four Citizens’ Panel groups (CP; n = 96), and a control group (n = 348). Data were collected in 2012 in four U.S. locations. Study Design Using mixed methods, we analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from a randomized control trial. Data Collection/Extraction Methods Using pre/postdeliberation surveys, we compared CD and CP participant attitude changes regarding antibiotic use to the control group. We analyzed deliberation transcripts using qualitative techniques to provide context for survey results. Principal Findings Compared to control group participants, CD and CP participants had a larger postdeliberation shift in attitudes toward support of government limits on when doctors can prescribe antibiotics. Participants described unawareness about antibiotic overuse and called for education. When discussing prescription limits, participants debated tensions between preserving patient/doctor autonomy and protecting society from antibiotic‐related harms. Participants saw patient, physician, and government roles in antibiotic stewardship policies/programs. Conclusion When informed about individual and social consequences of antibiotic overuse, patients may be more receptive to antibiotic prescription limits. Community‐physician‐government partnerships are needed to create solutions.

show abstract

Section: Use Of Content Experts For Antibiotic-related Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Me Thodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An informed public's views on reducing antibiotic overuse

Richmond

Mangrum

Wang

et al. 2019

Health Services Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is considerable theoretical and case study literature to support deliberative processes as effective, feasible and useful for capturing informed public input into complex health issues and policies that are value-laden and lack simple solutions (Carman et al 2014). Carcasson and Sprain (2016, p.5) describe deliberation as '.…”

Section: Current Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“….groups of individuals engaging in an inclusive, respectful, and reasoned consideration of information, views, experiences, and ideas'. The process involves a representative group of community members who are provided with balanced information on the topic at hand (Carcasson and Sprain 2016) and supported to consider diverse perspectives, learn from others and examine their own views before finalising their opinion (Carman et al 2014). This culminates in the production of information from the community point of view that has progressed from top-of-mind opinion to considered judgement (Fishkin et al 2004).…”

Section: Current Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To guide the selection process, a knowledge-and skills-based criterion was established along with specific demographic requirements to ensure membership was as representative of the local community as possible (Brownlea 1987;Irvin and Stansbury 2004;Carman et al 2014). Further to this, applicants were viewed as experts in the consumer experience, and effort was made to ensure a diversity of interactions with the Gold Coast health system were included.…”

Section: Current Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Not just tea and biscuits; the Gold Coast Primary Health Network process of designing, implementing and operating a Community Advisory Council

McClean

Trigger

2017

Aust. J. Prim. Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Consumers are fast being acknowledged as a critical voice in the creation of sustainable health systems, and their ability and willingness to participate must be kept in mind by those eager to engage them. Federal health reform in Australia has mandated the formal involvement of communities in primary care through advisory committees in the newly established Primary Health Networks. Although there is clear progression towards increased consumer participation in Australia's health services, scope exists to improve the evidence base around identifying and implementing the most appropriate approach in different settings. Gold Coast Primary Health Network has drawn on the principles of deliberative participation to design, implement and operate their Community Advisory Council. Although functioning well, further work is required to evaluate the efficiency of this approach.

show abstract

Regulating Gene Editing in the Wild: Building Regulatory Capacity to Incorporate Deliberative Democracy

Maschke¹,

Gusmano²

2021

Hastings Center Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The release of genetically engineered organisms into the shared environment raises scientific, ethical, and societal issues. Using some form of democratic deliberation to provide the public with a voice on the policies that govern these technologies is important, but there has not been enough attention to how we should connect public deliberation to the existing regulatory process. Drawing on lessons from previous public deliberative efforts by U.S. federal agencies, we identify several practical issues that will need to be addressed if relevant federal agencies are to undertake public deliberative activities to inform decision‐making about gene editing in the wild. We argue that, while agencies may have institutional capacity to undertake public deliberative activities, there may not be sufficient political support for them to do so. Advocates of public deliberation need to make a stronger case to Congress about why federal agencies should be encouraged and supported to conduct public deliberations.

show abstract

Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration: Evaluating Effectiveness and Eliciting Public Views on Use of Evidence - Final Report

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

An informed public's views on reducing antibiotic overuse

An informed public's views on reducing antibiotic overuse

Not just tea and biscuits; the Gold Coast Primary Health Network process of designing, implementing and operating a Community Advisory Council

Regulating Gene Editing in the Wild: Building Regulatory Capacity to Incorporate Deliberative Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About