Harnessing the Potential to Quantify Public Preferences for Healthcare Priorities through Citizens’ Juries

Authors

  • Andrew Wilson Menzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • Elizabeth Kendall Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation, Population and Social Health Research Program, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Logan campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
  • Jennifer A. Whitty School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; and Population and Social Health Research Program, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Logan campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
  • Julie Ratcliffe Flinders Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
  • Paul A. Scuffham Centre for Applied Health Economics, Population and Social Health Research Program, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Logan campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
  • Paul Burton Urban Research Program, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast campus, Southport, Queensland, Australia
  • Peter Littlejohns Division of Health and Social Care Research, King’s College School of Medicine, London, UK
Abstract:

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.

Download for Free

Sign up for free to access the full text

Already have an account?login

similar resources

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 de...

full text

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 de...

full text

Public Participation: More than a Method?; Comment on “Harnessing the Potential to Quantify Public Preferences for Healthcare Priorities through Citizens’ Juries”

While it is important to support the development of methods for public participation, we argue that this should not be at the expense of a broader consideration of the role of public participation. We suggest that a rights based approach provides a framework for developing more meaningful approaches that move beyond public participation as synonymous with consultation to value the contribution ...

full text

public participation: more than a method?; comment on “harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens’ juries”

while it is important to support the development of methods for public participation, we argue that this should not be at the expense of a broader consideration of the role of public participation. we suggest that a rights based approach provides a framework for developing more meaningful approaches that move beyond public participation as synonymous with consultation to value the contribution ...

full text

Public participation: more than a method?: Comment on "Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens' juries".

While it is important to support the development of methods for public participation, we argue that this should not be at the expense of a broader consideration of the role of public participation. We suggest that a rights based approach provides a framework for developing more meaningful approaches that move beyond public participation as synonymous with consultation to value the contribution ...

full text

Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens’ juries

INTRODUCTION The optimal approach to engage the public in healthcare decision-making is unclear. Approaches range from deliberative citizens' juries to large population surveys using discrete choice experiments. This study promotes public engagement and quantifies preferences in two key areas of relevance to the industry partners to identify which approach is most informative for informing heal...

full text

My Resources

Save resource for easier access later

Save to my library Already added to my library

{@ msg_add @}


Journal title

volume 3  issue 2

pages  57- 62

publication date 2014-07-01

By following a journal you will be notified via email when a new issue of this journal is published.

Hosted on Doprax cloud platform doprax.com

copyright © 2015-2023