P A Scuffham1,2, R Krinks3, K Chalkidou4, P Littlejohns5, J A Whitty6, A Wilson7, P Burton8, E Kendall3. 1. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. p.scuffham@griffith.edu.au. 2. School of Medicine, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. p.scuffham@griffith.edu.au. 3. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Imperial College London, London, UK. 5. Kings College London, London, UK. 6. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. 7. Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 8. Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important that guidelines and criteria used to prioritise access to bariatric surgery are informed by the values of the tax-paying public in combination with the expertise of healthcare professionals. Citizens' juries are increasingly used around the world to engage the public in healthcare decision-making. This study investigated citizens' juries about prioritising patient access to bariatric surgery in two Australian cities. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine public priorities for government expenditure on the surgical management of obesity developed through either a one or three-day citizen jury. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: A three-day jury was held in Brisbane and a one-day jury in Adelaide. Jurors were selected in Brisbane (n = 18) and in Adelaide (n = 12) according to pre-specified criteria. Expert witnesses from various medical disciplines and consumers were cross-examined by jurors. RESULTS: The verdicts of the juries were similar in that both juries agreed bariatric surgery was an important option in the management of obesity and related comorbidities. Recommendations about who should receive treatment differed slightly across the juries. Both juries rejected the use of age as a rationing tool, but managed their objections in different ways. Participants' experiences of the jury process were positive, but our observations suggested that many variables may influence the nature of the final verdict. CONCLUSIONS: Citizen's juries, even when shorter in duration, can be an effective tool to guide the development of health policy and priorities. However, our study has identified a range of variables that should be considered when designing and running a jury and when interpreting the verdict.
BACKGROUND: It is important that guidelines and criteria used to prioritise access to bariatric surgery are informed by the values of the tax-paying public in combination with the expertise of healthcare professionals. Citizens' juries are increasingly used around the world to engage the public in healthcare decision-making. This study investigated citizens' juries about prioritising patient access to bariatric surgery in two Australian cities. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine public priorities for government expenditure on the surgical management of obesity developed through either a one or three-day citizen jury. SUBJECTS/ METHODS: A three-day jury was held in Brisbane and a one-day jury in Adelaide. Jurors were selected in Brisbane (n = 18) and in Adelaide (n = 12) according to pre-specified criteria. Expert witnesses from various medical disciplines and consumers were cross-examined by jurors. RESULTS: The verdicts of the juries were similar in that both juries agreed bariatric surgery was an important option in the management of obesity and related comorbidities. Recommendations about who should receive treatment differed slightly across the juries. Both juries rejected the use of age as a rationing tool, but managed their objections in different ways. Participants' experiences of the jury process were positive, but our observations suggested that many variables may influence the nature of the final verdict. CONCLUSIONS: Citizen's juries, even when shorter in duration, can be an effective tool to guide the development of health policy and priorities. However, our study has identified a range of variables that should be considered when designing and running a jury and when interpreting the verdict.
Entities:
Keywords:
Citizen council; Decision-making; Obesity management; Public engagement
Authors: P A Scuffham; N Moretto; R Krinks; P Burton; J A Whitty; A Wilson; G Fitzgerald; P Littlejohns; E Kendall Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Paul A Scuffham; Julie Ratcliffe; Elizabeth Kendall; Paul Burton; Andrew Wilson; Kalipso Chalkidou; Peter Littlejohns; Jennifer A Whitty Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-05-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jennifer A Whitty; Julie Ratcliffe; Elizabeth Kendall; Paul Burton; Andrew Wilson; Peter Littlejohns; Paul Harris; Rachael Krinks; Paul A Scuffham Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Peter Littlejohns; Katharina Kieslich; Albert Weale; Emma Tumilty; Georgina Richardson; Tim Stokes; Robin Gauld; Paul Scuffham Journal: J Health Organ Manag Date: 2018-11-22