Literature DB >> 33956831

Public participation in crisis policymaking. How 30,000 Dutch citizens advised their government on relaxing COVID-19 lockdown measures.

Niek Mouter1, Jose Ignacio Hernandez1, Anatol Valerian Itten2.   

Abstract

Following the outbreak of COVID-19, governments took unprecedented measures to curb the spread of the virus. Public participation in decisions regarding (the relaxation of) these measures has been notably absent, despite being recommended in the literature. Here, as one of the exceptions, we report the results of 30,000 citizens advising the government on eight different possibilities for relaxing lockdown measures in the Netherlands. By making use of the novel method Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE), participants were asked to recommend which out of the eight options they prefer to be relaxed. Participants received information regarding the societal impacts of each relaxation option, such as the impact of the option on the healthcare system. The results of the PVE informed policymakers about people's preferences regarding (the impacts of) the relaxation options. For instance, we established that participants assign an equal value to a reduction of 100 deaths among citizens younger than 70 years and a reduction of 168 deaths among citizens older than 70 years. We show how these preferences can be used to rank options in terms of desirability. Citizens advised to relax lockdown measures, but not to the point at which the healthcare system becomes heavily overloaded. We found wide support for prioritising the re-opening of contact professions. Conversely, participants disfavoured options to relax restrictions for specific groups of citizens as they found it important that decisions lead to "unity" and not to "division". 80% of the participants state that PVE is a good method to let citizens participate in government decision-making on relaxing lockdown measures. Participants felt that they could express a nuanced opinion, communicate arguments, and appreciated the opportunity to evaluate relaxation options in comparison to each other while being informed about the consequences of each option. This increased their awareness of the dilemmas the government faces.

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33956831     DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0250614

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  6 in total

1.  COVID-19 and Biomedical Experts: When Epistemic Authority is (Probably) Not Enough.

Authors:  Pietro Pietrini; Andrea Lavazza; Mirko Farina
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2022-01-17       Impact factor: 1.352

Review 2.  Patient and public engagement in decision-making regarding infectious disease outbreak management: an integrative review.

Authors:  Sophie Kemper; Mej Bongers; Ene Slok; L J Schoonmade; Jfh Kupper; A Timen
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2021-11

3.  What values should an agent align with?: An empirical comparison of general and context-specific values.

Authors:  Enrico Liscio; Michiel van der Meer; Luciano C Siebert; Catholijn M Jonker; Pradeep K Murukannaiah
Journal:  Auton Agent Multi Agent Syst       Date:  2022-03-28       Impact factor: 2.475

4.  Patient and public involvement in the build-up of COVID-19 testing in Sweden.

Authors:  Mio Fredriksson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Discussing the Effect of Students' Crisis Awareness on Emotion During the COVID-19 Pandemic From the Perspective of Trust.

Authors:  Cheng Yang; Yinghua Miao
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-07-04

6.  Public engagement in decision-making regarding the management of the COVID-19 epidemic: Views and expectations of the 'publics'.

Authors:  Sophie Kemper; Frank Kupper; Sandra Kengne Kamga; Anne Brabers; Judith De Jong; Marloes Bongers; Aura Timen
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 3.318

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.