Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial

Abstract

Chicago, IL; Sacramento, CA; Silver Spring, MD; and Durham, NC, capturing a sociodemographically diverse sample with specific attention to ensuring inclusion of Hispanic, African-American, and elderly participants. Of 1774 people recruited, 75% participated: 961 took part in a deliberative method and 377 participants comprised the RMO control group. To assess effectiveness of the deliberative methods overall and of individual methods, we evaluated whether mean pre-post changes on a knowledge and attitude survey were statistically different from the RMO control using ANCOVA. In addition, we calculated mean scores capturing participant views of the impact and value of deliberation. Participating in deliberation increased participants' knowledge of evidence and comparative effectiveness research and shifted participants' attitudes regarding the role of evidence in decision-making. When comparing each deliberative method to the RMO control group, all four deliberative methods resulted in statistically significant change on at least one knowledge or attitude measure. These findings were underscored by self-reports that the experience affected participants' opinions. Public deliberation offers unique potential for those seeking informed input on complex, values-laden topics affecting broad public constituencies.

Understanding the factors that make public participation effective in health policy and planning: a realist synthesis

“…In this synthesis, we found that the mechanism of political commitment works when the health problem identified affects the common good, when it is considered a priority of the users (Crawford et al 2003;Carman et al 2015) and when the identified health problem is clear and specific (Abelson et al 2003;Crawford et al 2003). Intangible outcomes of public participation brought about by broadly defined issues promote the notion that nothing comes out of it.…”

“…Others also identified the possible outcome of public participation (Alborz et al 2002;Restall and Kaufert 2011;Carman et al 2015;Conklin et al 2015). Although there has been an increasing number of studies of public participation in health policy and planning, no studies have focused on the factors that provide explanations on how and why effectiveness could be achieved in this field.…”

“…Several studies show that public participation indeed increased the knowledge on the topic and helped the participants realise the processes involved (Abelson et al 2003;Goold et al 2005;Guttman et al 2008;Carman et al 2015). However, in ethical decision-making in health policy, Mullen (2008) doubts if the public participation process increases the defensibility of decisions.…”

Considerações Teóricas Do Diálogo Deliberativo: Contribuições Para Prática, Política E Pesquisa Em Enfermagem

“…9 While it is recognized as a knowledge translation strategy, 10 it also has the potential to be an approach to data collection in qualitative research. 9 Several studies have documented that deliberative dialogue can significantly contribute to change practice and policy, [11][12][13] overcoming challenges such as irrelevant evidence and access to scientific knowledge, and making research evidence easier to use in decision-making. 10 Policies formed through deliberative dialogue comprise technical and real-world knowledge; therefore they are more legitimate, feasible, better framed, more accountable, and inclusive.…”

“…10 Policies formed through deliberative dialogue comprise technical and real-world knowledge; therefore they are more legitimate, feasible, better framed, more accountable, and inclusive. [11][12][13][14] Deliberative processes are well suited to the health field because they can meet the broader objectives of stimulating debate, improving the understanding of complex issues, and encouraging consensus about health services priorities. 15 However, there has been very limited experience in nursing with deliberative dialogue.…”