Developing and applying a deductive coding framework to assess the goals of Citizen/Community Jury deliberations

Scott, Anna Mae; Sims, Rebecca; Degeling, Chris; Carter, Stacy M; Thomas, Rae

doi:10.1111/hex.12880

Cited by 6 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the main strength of using a Citizens’ Jury is the informed, democratic and deliberative process undertaken to engage members of the public 14 . there are several limitations that need to be considered.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A Citizens’ Jury was conducted and is reported in accordance with typically used guidelines 14,17,25,32,33 . Citizens’ Juries, as with juries in a court of law, are based on the premise that a random sample of the population may hear evidence on a topic and then undertake deliberations that are representative of the conscience, intelligence and preferences of the general public 17‐19,32,34 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research team then coded and thematically analysed the discussions of the jurors. The analysis utilized a realist approach to discourse analysis, particularly thematic analysis, 35 and utilized the deductive framework advocated by Scott and colleagues 14 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[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. When adopted in a health-care context, non-expert participants consider the realities of health policy development, are exposed to the perspectives and experience of others and reach consensus on recommendations for action.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Lannin

Coulter

Laver

et al. 2020

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Brain injury rehabilitation is an expensive and long‐term endeavour. Very little published information or debate has underpinned policy for service delivery in Australia. Within the context of finite health budgets and the challenges associated with providing optimal care to persons with brain injuries, members of the public were asked ‘What considerations are important to include in a model of care of brain injury rehabilitation?’ Methods Qualitative study using the Citizen Jury method of participatory research. Twelve adult jurors from the community and seven witnesses participated including a health services funding model expert, peak body representative with lived experience of brain injury, carer of a person with a brain injury, and brain injury rehabilitation specialists. Witnesses were cross‐examined by jurors over two days. Results Key themes related to the need for a model of rehabilitation to: be consumer‐focused and supporting the retention of hope; be long‐term; provide equitable access to services irrespective of funding source; be inclusive of family; provide advocacy; raise public awareness; and be delivered by experts in a suitable environment. A set of eight recommendations were made. Conclusion Instigating the recommendations made requires careful consideration of the need for new models of care with flexible services; family involvement; recruitment and retention of highly skilled staff; and providing consumer‐focused services that prepare individuals and their carers for the long term. Patient and public contribution As jury members, the public deliberated information provided by expert witnesses (including a person with a head injury) and wrote the key recommendations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Lannin

Coulter

Laver

et al. 2020

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Themes for evaluating the quality of initiatives to engage patients and family caregivers in decision-making in healthcare systems: a scoping review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo identify the key themes for evaluating the quality of initiatives to engage patients and family caregivers in decision-making across the organisation and system domains of healthcare systems.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review. Seven databases of journal articles were searched from their inception to June 2019. Eligible articles were literature reviews published in English and provided useful information for determining aspects of engaging patients and family caregivers in decision-making to evaluate. We extracted text under three predetermined categories: structure, process and outcomes that were adapted from the Donabedian conceptual framework. These excerpts were then independently open-coded among four researchers. The subsequent themes and their corresponding excerpts were summarised to provide a rich description of each theme.ResultsOf 7747 unique articles identified, 366 were potentially relevant, from which we selected the 42 literature reviews. 18 unique themes were identified across the three predetermined categories. There were six structure themes: engagement plan, level of engagement, time and timing of engagement, format and composition, commitment to support and environment. There were four process themes: objectives, engagement approach, communication and engagement activities. There were eight outcome themes: decision-making process, stakeholder relationship, capacity development, stakeholder experience, shape policy/service/programme, health status, healthcare quality, and cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsThe 18 themes and their descriptions provide a foundation for identifying constructs and selecting measures to evaluate the quality of initiatives for engaging patients and family caregivers in healthcare system decision-making within the organisation and system domains. The themes can be used to investigate the mechanisms through which relevant initiatives are effective and investigate their effectiveness.

show abstract

Assessing Facilitator Fidelity to Principles of Public Deliberation: Tutorial

Draucker,

Carrión,

Ott

et al. 2023

JMIR Form Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public deliberation, or deliberative democracy, is a method used to elicit informed perspectives and justifiable solutions to ethically fraught or contentious issues that affect multiple stakeholder groups with conflicting interests. Deliberative events bring together stakeholders (deliberants) who are provided with empirical evidence on the central issue or concern and then asked to discuss the evidence, consider the issue from a societal perspective, and collectively work toward a justifiable resolution. There is increasing interest in this method, which warrants clear guidance for evaluating the quality of its use in research. Most of the existing literature on measuring deliberation quality emphasizes the quality of deliberants’ inputs (eg, engagement and evidence of compromise) during deliberative sessions. Fewer researchers have framed quality in terms of facilitator inputs, and these researchers tend to examine inputs that are consistent with generic group processes. The theory, process, and purpose of public deliberation, however, are distinct from those of focus groups or other group-based discussions and warrant a mechanism for measuring quality in terms of facilitator fidelity to the principles and processes of deliberative democracy. In our public deliberation on ethical conflicts in minor consent for biomedical HIV prevention research, we assessed facilitator fidelity to these principles and processes because we believe that such assessments serve as a component of a comprehensive evaluation of overall deliberation quality. We examined verbatim facilitator remarks in the deliberation transcripts and determined whether they aligned with the 6 principles of public deliberation: equal participation, respect for the opinions of others, adoption of a societal perspective, reasoned justification of ideas, expression of diverse opinions, and compromise or movement toward consensus. In this tutorial, we describe the development of a blueprint to guide researchers in assessing facilitator fidelity, share 3 templates that will assist them in the task, and describe the results of our assessment of facilitator fidelity in 1 of the 4 sites in which we conducted deliberations.

show abstract

Developing and applying a deductive coding framework to assess the goals of Citizen/Community Jury deliberations

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

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

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

Themes for evaluating the quality of initiatives to engage patients and family caregivers in decision-making in healthcare systems: a scoping review

Assessing Facilitator Fidelity to Principles of Public Deliberation: Tutorial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About