Stakeholder participation in the COVID-19 pandemic preparedness and response plans: A synthesis of findings from 70 countries

Aguilera, Bernardo; Donya, Razavi s.; Vélez, Claudia-Marcela; Kapiriri, Lydia; Abelson, Julia; Nouvet, Elysee; Danis, Marion; Goold, Susan; Williams, Ieystn; Noorulhuda, Mariam

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105013

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some definitions may include where participants are only recipients of and implementers of public health information. 5 6 Conversely, the WHO has focused specifically on ‘deliberation and direct integration between members of the public and a national policy-making process’ in its guidance for citizen engagement within evidence-informed policy making. 7 Besides being a democratic right, public involvement can enhance decision quality, build trust, assure transparency, 8 include marginalised groups in decision-making 9 and ensure that important uncertainties are identified and addressed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public participation in decisions about measures to manage the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review

Munthe-Kaas,

Oxman,

von Lieres

et al. 2024

BMJ Glob Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies.ObjectivesTo systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignWe searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis.ResultsWe included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved ‘consulting’ the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria.ConclusionsDecisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public.PROSPERO registration number358991.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%