Including the public in pandemic planning: a deliberative approach

Abstract

BackgroundAgainst a background of pandemic threat posed by SARS and avian H5N1 influenza, this study used deliberative forums to elucidate informed community perspectives on aspects of pandemic planning.MethodsTwo deliberative forums were carried out with members of the South Australian community. The forums were supported by a qualitative study with adults and youths, systematic reviews of the literature and the involvement of an extended group of academic experts and policy makers. The forum discussions were recorded with simultaneous transcription and analysed thematically.ResultsParticipants allocated scarce resources of antiviral drugs and pandemic vaccine based on a desire to preserve society function in a time of crisis. Participants were divided on the acceptability of social distancing and quarantine measures. However, should such measures be adopted, they thought that reasonable financial, household and psychological support was essential. In addition, provided such support was present, the participants, in general, were willing to impose strict sanctions on those who violated quarantine and social distancing measures.ConclusionsThe recommendations from the forums suggest that the implementation of pandemic plans in a severe pandemic will be challenging, but not impossible. Implementation may be more successful if the public is engaged in pandemic planning before a pandemic, effective communication of key points is practiced before and during a pandemic and if judicious use is made of supportive measures to assist those in quarantine or affected by social isolation measures.

The ASTUTE Health study protocol: Deliberative stakeholder engagements to inform implementation approaches to healthcare disinvestment

“…Based on multiple reports of lay citizens engaging successfully in technically complex areas of health policy [22-24], this process of community engagement was designed around evidence-informed deliberations, requiring participants to be technically informed on a topic without influencing their deliberation [5]. For the community groups in each case study, the information presented was designed to be accessible to participants with no prior knowledge of the topic areas.…”

A community-based participatory approach and engagement process creates culturally appropriate and community informed pandemic plans after the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic: remote and isolated First Nations communities of sub-arctic Ontario, Canada

“…For instance, surveys and qualitative methods (e.g., focus groups, interviews) have been shown to inform policy decision-making by providing public opinion about recommendations; however, a concern is that the public may not completely understand the complexity of the issue(s) [18,21,22]. Thus, to counteract the concern of the public having a limited understanding of the issue, deliberative forums can be used in conjunction as the participants are provided with detailed information prior to eliciting their opinion.…”

Listen to the public and fulfil their information interests – translating vaccine communication research findings into guidance for regulators

“…Forty‐five articles (full text or abstracts, as indicated in the references) were considered relevant for the recommendations 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84. Additionally, EU reviews of the communication about 2009/10 (H1N1) pandemic influenza vaccines 22, 85 and key publications on medicines/vaccines communication were extracted 9, 21, 86, 87, 88, 89.…”