Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes

Abelson, Julia; Forest, Pierre Gerlier; Eyles, John; Smith, Patricia; Martin, Élisabeth; Gauvin, François

doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00343-x

Cited by 802 publications

(777 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

747

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We have shown that different researchers are using these publics for different purposes in deliberative processes. This suggests a need for greater clarity about the roles of citizen and consumer publics in particular, and further consideration of their respective legitimacy in real policy-making processes (Abelson et al, 2003;Martin, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Public involvement in decision making in matters related to health has been an area of focus in science and technology studies (Evans & Plows, 2007;Felt & Fochler, 2010;Marres, 2011) and health policy research (Abelson et al, 2003;Evans & Plows, 2007;Felt & Fochler, 2010;Litva et al, 2002;Marres, 2011;Tenbensel, 2010). While much of this literature focuses on public consultation per se, rather than specifically on deliberation, three basic constructions of the public are commonly employed (Braun & Schultz, 2010;Charles & DeMaio, 1993;Litva et al, 2009;Martin, 2012).…”

Section: Conceptual Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The last decade has seen a convergence by healthcare and public health researchers on deliberative democracy methods as a means to bring people's opinions and values into health policy processes (Abelson et al, 2003;Street et al, 2014). Deliberative methods offer policymakers the promise of greater transparency and public accountability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research

Degeling

Carter

Rychetnik

2015

Social Science & Medicine

158

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deliberative methods are of increasing interest to public health researchers and policymakers. We systematically searched the peer-reviewed literature to identify public health and health policy research involving deliberative methods and report how deliberative methods have been used. We applied a taxonomy developed with reference to health policy and science and technology studies literatures to distinguish how deliberative methods engage different publics: citizens (ordinary people who are unfamiliar with the issues), consumers (those with relevant personal experience e.g. of illness) and advocates (those with technical expertise or partisan interests). We searched four databases for empirical studies in English published 1996-2013. This identified 78 articles reporting on 62 distinct events from the UK, USA, Canada, Australasia, Europe, Israel, Asia and Africa. Ten different types of deliberative techniques were used to represent and capture the interests and preferences of different types of public. Citizens were typically directed to consider community interests and were treated as a resource to increase democratic legitimacy. Citizens were preferred in methodological studies (those focused on understanding the techniques). Consumers were directed to focus on personal preferences; thus convened not as a source of policy decisions, but of knowledge about what those affected by the issue would accept. Advocates-who are most commonly used as expert witnesses in jurieswere sometimes engaged to deliberate with consumers or citizens. This almost always occurred in projects directly linked to policy processes. This suggests health policymakers may value deliberative methods as a way of understanding disagreement between perspectives. Overall however, the 'type' of public sought was often not explicit, and their role not specified. This review provides new insight into the heterogeneity and rising popularity of deliberative methods, and indicates a need for greater clarity regarding both the constitution of publics and the relative usefulness of different deliberative techniques.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceptual Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research

Degeling

Carter

Rychetnik

2015

Social Science & Medicine

158

176

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This entails including patients, service users (or 'consumers') and the general public when making decisions and aims to ensure that all decisions are informed, transparent and legitimate (Handler et al, 2001;Abelson, 2003). However, typical elicitation experiments lack realism, and often reduce the decision-making question to a handful of programs which do not capture the set of value trade-offs that health systems regularly make.…”

Section: Health System Performance Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying health system value dimensions: more than health gain?

Costa‐Font

Sato

Forns

2017

HEPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publicly funded health system reforms increasingly require the evaluation of competing programs with multidimensional attributes including both health and non-health outcomes (values). This paper identifies the design and implementation of a methodology that validates health priority setting. The exercise suggests that the proposed mixed methods methodology is suitable for eliciting and validating health system values, and its findings show that pursuing health gain alone does not fully capture the dimensions of health system value. More specifically, we identify a list of health system values (elicited by both potential and actual users) and classify them in terms of process related values (e.g., shorter waiting lists, greater choice etc) and improvements in health system equity in addition to value derived from health gain.

show abstract

“…There is growing interest in involving citizens in policy development to ensure that decisions are legitimate, and reflect broad social values (Bombard et al, 2011). There is growing interest in involving a broader range of stakeholders in public policy development and 12 HTA-related policy more specifically including patients and service users (or 'consumers').This enthusiasm stems from a need to ensure that decisions are informed, transparent and legitimate (Abelson, 2003(Abelson, , 2007. Universal access, 'choice', and 'quality care' were identified as core values that should be considered in the evaluation of health technologies and ensuing recommendations.…”

Section: Participatory Budget Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment

Costa‐Font

Forns

Sato

2015

Social Science & Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Budget experiments can provide additional guidance to heath system reform requiring the identification of a subset of programs and services that accrue the highest social value to 'communities'. Such experiments simulate a realistic budget resource allocation assessment among competitive programs, and position citizens as decision makers responsible for making 'collective sacrifices'. This paper explores the use of a participatory budget experiment (with 88 participants clustered in social groups) to model public health care reform, drawing from a set of realistic scenarios for potential health care users. We measure preferences by employing a contingent ranking alongside a budget allocation exercise (termed 'willingness to assign') before and after program cost information is revealed. Evidence suggests that the budget experiment method tested is cognitively feasible, incentive compatible. The main downside is the existence of ex-ante "cost estimation" bias. Additionally, we find that participants appeared to underestimate the net social gain of redistributive programs. Relative social value estimates can serve as a guide to aid priority setting at a health system level.

show abstract

Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes

Cited by 802 publications

References 37 publications

Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research

Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research

Identifying health system value dimensions: more than health gain?

Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About