Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial.
نویسندگان
چکیده
UNLABELLED Public deliberation elicits informed perspectives on complex issues that are values-laden and lack technical solutions. This Deliberative Methods Demonstration examined the effectiveness of public deliberation for obtaining informed public input regarding the role of medical evidence in U.S. healthcare. We conducted a 5-arm randomized controlled trial, assigning participants to one of four deliberative methods or to a reading materials only (RMO) control group. The four deliberative methods reflected important differences in implementation, including length of the deliberative process and mode of interaction. The project convened 76 groups between August and November 2012 in four U.S. LOCATIONS 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.
منابع مشابه
Indian Medical Mission at Hajj-2016: Mass-Gathering Medicine Perspectives, Challenges, and Opportunities in a Mission Posture
Introduction: Hajj is an annual mass gathering of over 3.5 million pilgrims congregating from 200 countries in the desert climate of Saudi Arabia. Mass gathering medicine at Hajj is challenged by issues of healthcare accessibility, infection control, on-site treatment, referral, evacuation, and response to disasters and public health emergencies. The Indian Medical Mission at H...
متن کاملMoving Towards Accountability for Reasonableness – A Systematic Exploration of the Features of Legitimate Healthcare Coverage Decision-Making Processes Using Rare Diseases and Regenerative Therapies as a Case Study
Background The accountability for reasonableness (A4R) framework defines 4 conditions for legitimate healthcare coverage decision processes: Relevance, Publicity, Appeals, and Enforcement. The aim of this study was to reflect on how the diverse features of decision-making processes can be aligned with A4R conditions to guide decisio...
متن کاملDelving Into the Details of Evaluating Public Engagement Initiatives; Comment on “Metrics and Evaluation Tools for Patient Engagement in Healthcare Organization- and System-Level Decision-Making: A Systematic Review”
Initiatives to engage the public in health policy decisions have been widely endorsed and used, yet agreed upon methods for systematically evaluating the effectiveness of these initiatives remain to be developed. Dukhanin, Topazian, and DeCamp have thus developed a useful taxonomy of evaluation criteria derived from a systematic review of published evaluation tools that might serve as the basis...
متن کاملSwiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage
Background As universal health coverage becomes the norm in many countries, it is important to determine public priorities regarding benefits to include in health insurance coverage. We report results of participation in a decision exercise among residents of Switzerland, a high-income country with a long history of universal health insurance and deliberative democracy. Methods We adapted the...
متن کاملChallenges in the Design, Conduct, Analysis, and Reporting of Randomized Clinical Trial Studies in Iran: A Qualitative Study
Background and Objectives: Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness and safety of medical interventions. Some unpredictable challenges may affect the results of these studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the challenges of clinical trial studies in different stages including design, conduct, analysis, and reporting. Methods: This ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- Social science & medicine
دوره 133 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2015