Literature DB >> 23378639

Enhancing citizen engagement in cancer screening through deliberative democracy.

Lucie Rychetnik1, Stacy M Carter, Julia Abelson, Hazel Thornton, Alexandra Barratt, Vikki A Entwistle, Geraldine Mackenzie, Glenn Salkeld, Paul Glasziou.   

Abstract

Cancer screening is widely practiced and participation is promoted by various social, technical, and commercial drivers, but there are growing concerns about the emerging harms, risks, and costs of cancer screening. Deliberative democracy methods engage citizens in dialogue on substantial and complex problems: especially when evidence and values are important and people need time to understand and consider the relevant issues. Information derived from such deliberations can provide important guidance to cancer screening policies: citizens' values are made explicit, revealing what really matters to people and why. Policy makers can see what informed, rather than uninformed, citizens would decide on the provision of services and information on cancer screening. Caveats can be elicited to guide changes to existing policies and practices. Policies that take account of citizens' opinions through a deliberative democracy process can be considered more legitimate, justifiable, and feasible than those that don't.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23378639     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djs649

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  27 in total

1.  Multi-Stakeholder Informed Guidelines for Direct Admission of Children to Hospital.

Authors:  JoAnna K Leyenaar; Megan Shevenell; Paul A Rizzo; Vanessa L Hill; Peter K Lindenauer
Journal:  J Pediatr       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 4.406

2.  Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Bernt-Peter Robra
Journal:  Recent Results Cancer Res       Date:  2021

3.  Effect of deliberation on the public's attitudes toward consent policies for biobank research.

Authors:  Tom Tomlinson; Raymond G De Vries; H Myra Kim; Linda Gordon; Kerry A Ryan; Chris D Krenz; Scott Jewell; Scott Y H Kim
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 4.246

4.  Effect of Public Deliberation on Patient Attitudes Regarding Consent and Data Use in a Learning Health Care System for Oncology.

Authors:  Reshma Jagsi; Kent A Griffith; Rochelle D Jones; Chris Krenz; Michele Gornick; Rebecca Spence; Raymond De Vries; Sarah T Hawley; Robin Zon; Sage Bolte; Navid Sadeghi; Richard L Schilsky; Angela R Bradbury
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2019-10-02       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Addressing Health Disparities Through Deliberative Methods: Citizens' Panels for Health Equity.

Authors:  Andrew M Subica; Brandon J Brown
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Effect of Public Deliberation on Attitudes toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing.

Authors:  Michele C Gornick; Aaron M Scherer; Erica J Sutton; Kerry A Ryan; Nicole L Exe; Ming Li; Wendy R Uhlmann; Scott Y H Kim; J Scott Roberts; Raymond G De Vries
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2016-06-16       Impact factor: 2.537

7.  Deliberative Engagement Methods for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

Authors:  Stephanie R Morain; Danielle M Whicher; Nancy E Kass; Ruth R Faden
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.883

8.  Public's Views toward Return of Secondary Results in Genomic Sequencing: It's (Almost) All about the Choice.

Authors:  Kerry A Ryan; Raymond G De Vries; Wendy R Uhlmann; J Scott Roberts; Michele C Gornick
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 2.537

9.  Recent controversies on comparative effectiveness research investigations: Challenges, opportunities, and pitfalls.

Authors:  Haresh Kirpalani; William E Truog; Carl T D'Angio; Michael Cotten
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2016-08-08       Impact factor: 3.300

10.  Public preferences for engagement in Health Technology Assessment decision-making: protocol of a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Sally Wortley; Allison Tong; Emily Lancsar; Glenn Salkeld; Kirsten Howard
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.