BACKGROUND: Involving members of the public in setting priorities for health research in becoming increasingly common practice. One method used in public involvement exercises is the citizens' jury. OBJECTIVE: This article examines some challenges and benefits of citizens' juries, including issues relating to process, public engagement and outcome. DESIGN: In Bristol, UK, a citizens' jury was held with the aim of identifying local priorities for research into health and social care. This jury is used as an example through which key issues in public involvement and jury processes are explored. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Bristol Citizens' Jury comprised 20 members of the public ('jurors'), an oversight panel and a steering group. The jurors met at 11 consecutive sessions during 2006 over a period of 16 weeks, which culminated in a written report. All the sessions were audio-recorded, five sessions were observed and video-recorded, and 16 jurors completed written feedback forms at the end of the jury process. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: In this article we discuss degree and timing of public involvement in the process of health research; the role of context; representation of communities; processes of deliberation and knowledge production; and how constraints of time and cost may affect public involvement. It was clear that jurors who took part in the Bristol Citizens' Jury were engaged and committed. This engagement may be related to jurors' belief in their ability to shape future research alongside concern about the relevance of the issues under discussion. Opposing emotions of tension and harmony are a crucial part of the deliberation process.
BACKGROUND: Involving members of the public in setting priorities for health research in becoming increasingly common practice. One method used in public involvement exercises is the citizens' jury. OBJECTIVE: This article examines some challenges and benefits of citizens' juries, including issues relating to process, public engagement and outcome. DESIGN: In Bristol, UK, a citizens' jury was held with the aim of identifying local priorities for research into health and social care. This jury is used as an example through which key issues in public involvement and jury processes are explored. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Bristol Citizens' Jury comprised 20 members of the public ('jurors'), an oversight panel and a steering group. The jurors met at 11 consecutive sessions during 2006 over a period of 16 weeks, which culminated in a written report. All the sessions were audio-recorded, five sessions were observed and video-recorded, and 16 jurors completed written feedback forms at the end of the jury process. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: In this article we discuss degree and timing of public involvement in the process of health research; the role of context; representation of communities; processes of deliberation and knowledge production; and how constraints of time and cost may affect public involvement. It was clear that jurors who took part in the Bristol Citizens' Jury were engaged and committed. This engagement may be related to jurors' belief in their ability to shape future research alongside concern about the relevance of the issues under discussion. Opposing emotions of tension and harmony are a crucial part of the deliberation process.
Authors: Andrea Litva; Joanna Coast; Jenny Donovan; John Eyles; Michael Shepherd; Jo Tacchi; Julia Abelson; Kieran Morgan Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: S Oliver; L Clarke-Jones; R Rees; R Milne; P Buchanan; J Gabbay; G Gyte; A Oakley; K Stein Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Jo Brett; Sophie Staniszewska; Carole Mockford; Sandra Herron-Marx; John Hughes; Colin Tysall; Rashida Suleman Journal: Health Expect Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Mark Helfand; Sean Tunis; Evelyn P Whitlock; Stephen G Pauker; Anirban Basu; Jon Chilingerian; Frank E Harrell; David O Meltzer; Victor M Montori; Donald S Shepard; David M Kent Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Gerry King; David J Heaney; David Boddy; Catherine A O'Donnell; Julia S Clark; Frances S Mair Journal: Health Expect Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Nathan D Shippee; Juan Pablo Domecq Garces; Gabriela J Prutsky Lopez; Zhen Wang; Tarig A Elraiyah; Mohammed Nabhan; Juan P Brito; Kasey Boehmer; Rim Hasan; Belal Firwana; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori; M Hassan Murad Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-06-03 Impact factor: 3.377