Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial.
Carman, Kristin L; Mallery, Coretta; Maurer, Maureen; Wang, Grace; Garfinkel, Steve; Yang, Manshu; Gilmore, Dierdre; Windham, Amy; Ginsburg, Marjorie; Sofaer, Shoshanna; Gold, Marthe; Pathak-Sen, Ela; Davies, Todd; Siegel, Joanna; Mangrum, Rikki; Fernandez, Jessica; Richmond, Jennifer; Fishkin, James; Siu Chao, Alice.
Afiliación
  • Carman KL; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA. Electronic address: KCarman@air.org.
  • Mallery C; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Maurer M; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Wang G; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Garfinkel S; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Yang M; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Gilmore D; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Windham A; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Ginsburg M; Center for Healthcare Decisions, 955 University Avenue, Suite C, Sacramento, CA 95825, USA.
  • Sofaer S; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Gold M; City College of New York, The Graduate Center, CUNY, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016, USA.
  • Pathak-Sen E; Commotion, Nishana Enterprises Ltd, Culvert Cottage, Kingsmill Lane, Painswick GL6 6RT, UK.
  • Davies T; Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University, CSLI, Cordura Hall, 210 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
  • Siegel J; Center for Outcomes and Evidence, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Suite 2000, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
  • Mangrum R; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Fernandez J; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Richmond J; American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.
  • Fishkin J; Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University, Dept. of Communication, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 120, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
  • Siu Chao A; Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University, Dept. of Communication, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 120, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Soc Sci Med ; 133: 11-20, 2015 May.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25828260
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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Opinión Pública / Participación de la Comunidad / Toma de Decisiones / Política de Salud Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Evaluation_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Soc Sci Med Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Opinión Pública / Participación de la Comunidad / Toma de Decisiones / Política de Salud Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Evaluation_studies / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research Límite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Región como asunto: America do norte Idioma: En Revista: Soc Sci Med Año: 2015 Tipo del documento: Article