Literature DB >> 25828260

Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial.

Kristin L Carman1, Coretta Mallery2, Maureen Maurer2, Grace Wang2, Steve Garfinkel2, Manshu Yang2, Dierdre Gilmore2, Amy Windham2, Marjorie Ginsburg3, Shoshanna Sofaer2, Marthe Gold4, Ela Pathak-Sen5, Todd Davies6, Joanna Siegel7, Rikki Mangrum2, Jessica Fernandez2, Jennifer Richmond2, James Fishkin8, Alice Siu Chao8.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Citizens' jury; Comparative effectiveness research; Evidence-based medicine; Public deliberation; Public engagement; Public opinion; United States

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25828260     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  27 in total

1.  An informed public's views on reducing antibiotic overuse.

Authors:  Jennifer Richmond; Rikki Mangrum; Grace Wang; Maureen Maurer; Shoshanna Sofaer; Manshu Yang; Kristin L Carman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  You Are Just Now Telling Us About This? African American Perspectives of Testing for Genetic Susceptibility to Kidney Disease.

Authors:  Ebele M Umeukeje; Bessie A Young; Stephanie M Fullerton; Kerri Cavanaugh; Delia Owens; James G Wilson; Wylie Burke; Erika Blacksher
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2019-03-11       Impact factor: 10.121

3.  Using Democratic Deliberation to Engage Veterans in Complex Policy Making for the Veterans Health Administration.

Authors:  Tanner J Caverly; Claire H Robinson; Sarah L Krein; Jane Forman; Martha Quinn; Sarah E Skurla; Laura Damschroder
Journal:  Fed Pract       Date:  2020-01

4.  Public Mistrust of the U.S. Health Care System's Profit Motives: Mixed-Methods Results from a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jennifer Richmond; Wizdom Powell; Maureen Maurer; Rikki Mangrum; Marthe R Gold; Ela Pathak-Sen; Manshu Yang; Kristin L Carman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  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

6.  Deliberations with American Indian and Alaska Native People about the Ethics of Genomics: An Adapted Model of Deliberation Used with Three Tribal Communities in the United States.

Authors:  Erika Blacksher; Vanessa Y Hiratsuka; Jessica W Blanchard; Justin R Lund; Justin Reedy; Julie A Beans; Bobby Saunkeah; Micheal Peercy; Christie Byars; Joseph Yracheta; Krystal S Tsosie; Marcia O'Leary; Guthrie Ducheneaux; Paul G Spicer
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2021-06-14

7.  Linking Broad Consent to Biobank Governance: Support From a Deliberative Public Engagement in California.

Authors:  Sarah B Garrett; Daniel Dohan; Barbara A Koenig
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 11.229

8.  Parental attitudes and expectations towards receiving genomic test results in healthy children.

Authors:  Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Lindsay Bailey; Kara Fultz; Audrey Fan; Janet L Williams; Adam Buchanan; F Daniel Davis; Michael F Murray; Marc S Williams
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.046

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.  Hopeful and Concerned: Public Input on Building a Trustworthy Medical Information Commons.

Authors:  Patricia A Deverka; Dierdre Gilmore; Jennifer Richmond; Zachary Smith; Rikki Mangrum; Barbara A Koenig; Robert Cook-Deegan; Angela G Villanueva; Mary A Majumder; Amy L McGuire
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 1.718

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.