harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens’ juries

despite progress towards greater public engagement, questions about the optimal approach to access public preferences remain unanswered. we review two increasingly popular methods for engaging the public in healthcare priority-setting and determining their preferences; the citizens’ jury (cj) and discrete choice experiment (dce). we discuss the theoretical framework from which each method is derived, its application in healthcare, and critique the information it can provide for decision-makers. we conclude that combining deliberation of an informed public via cjs and quantification of preferences using dce methods, whilst it remains to be tested as an approach to engaging the public in priority-setting, could potentially achieve much richer information than the application of either method in isolation.