The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Identifying approaches for synthesizing and summarizing information to support informed citizen deliberations in health policy: a scoping review
Abstract
Objective: Public deliberations are an increasingly popular tool to engage citizens in the development of health policies and programmes. However, limited research has been conducted on how to best synthesize and summarize information on health policy issues for citizens. To begin to address this gap, our aim was to map the literature on the preparation of information to support informed citizen deliberations related to health policy issues. Methods: We conducted a scoping review where two reviewers screened the results of electronic database searches, grey literature searches and hand searches of organizational websites to identify empirical studies, scholarly commentaries, and publicly available organizational documents focused on synthesizing and summarizing information to inform citizen deliberation about health policy issues. Two reviewers categorized each included document according to themes/topics of deliberation, purpose of deliberation and the form of deliberation, and developed a summary of the key findings related to synthesizing and summarizing information to support informed citizen deliberations. Results: There was limited reporting about whether and how information was synthesized. Evidence was typically organized based on the source used (e.g. by comparing the views of stakeholders or experts) or according to the areas that policymakers need to consider when making decisions (e.g. benefits, harms, costs and stakeholder perspectives related to policy options). Information was presented primarily through written materials (e.g. briefs and brochures), audiovisual resources (e.g. videos or presentations from stakeholders), but some interactive presentation approaches were also identified (e.g. through interactive arts-based approaches). Conclusions: The choice and framing of information to inform citizen deliberations about health policy can strongly influence their understanding of a policy issue, and has the potential to impact the discussions and recommendations that emerge from deliberations. Our review confirmed that there remains a dearth of literature describing methods of the preparation of information to inform citizen deliberations about health policy issues. This highlights the need for further exploration of optimal strategies for citizen-friendly approaches to synthesizing and summarizing information for deliberations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Democratic institutions are pivotal for advancing health equity, particularly when addressing participation through work and employment, social movements, and migration.
“Democratic institutions are pivotal for advancing health equity, particularly when addressing three interconnected challenges (40): participation through work and employment, social movements, and migration.”
From Bridging Sectors and Disciplines to Gain a Critical Understanding of the Eco-Social Determinants of Health Inequities: The ESDHI-EU Conference (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Collaborative efforts must be based on democratic debate and public participation.
“Hence, collaborative efforts must be based on democratic debate and public participation (40).”
From Bridging Sectors and Disciplines to Gain a Critical Understanding of the Eco-Social Determinants of Health Inequities: The ESDHI-EU Conference (2025) · cites this paper as [40]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 52
- 10.1002/hast.30 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.024 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.003 · DOI
- 10.1353/hpu.2015.0021 · DOI
- 10.1002/hast.27 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X · DOI
- 10.1177/0162243903259197 · DOI
- 10.1177/016224390002500101 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630 · DOI
- 10.1080/1364557032000119616 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/hast.26 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0266462313000299 · DOI
- 10.1038/ejhg.2012.300 · DOI
- 10.2217/17410541.5.3.285 · DOI
- Gauvin FP., 2017, Citizen panels program
- 10.1007/s10897-016-9987-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.10.012 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12913-016-1870-z · DOI
- 10.1007/s10728-009-0113-4 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00701.x · DOI
- 10.1089/gtmb.2013.0044 · DOI
- 10.1007/s40271-017-0238-8 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0143176 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.10.009 · DOI
- Chafe R, 2011, Canad Fam Phys, 57, e68
- 10.1017/S0266462310000024 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.044 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.053 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11948-002-0010-9 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11948-004-0068-7 · DOI
- 10.1002/ajmg.a.34414 · DOI
- 10.1177/0963662509335410 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x · DOI
- 10.3390/ijerph110302456 · DOI
- 10.1089/bio.2011.0029 · DOI
- 10.1159/000167801 · DOI
- 10.1159/000279621 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.026 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.08.007 · DOI
- Pricewaterhouse Coopers, MASS LBP, 2011, Public priorities for Ontario's health system: a report of the citizens' reference panel on Ontario health services
- 10.1136/emermed-2015-205663 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jcpo.2014.07.002 · DOI
- 10.1186/1748-5908-7-101 · DOI
- 10.1177/0963662510385062 · DOI
- Gauvin FP, 2013, Citizen brief: improving access to palliative care in Ontario
- Gauvin FP, 2013, Evidence brief: improving end-of-life communication and decision-making in Ontario
- 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1112 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.029 · DOI
- The Jefferson Center, 2004, Citizens jury handbook
- 10.1016/j.jval.2015.05.012 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00562.x · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Morrison, J., Tumas, N., Moreno Mattar, O., Gutiérrez-Zamora Navarro, M., Pericas, J. M., Martínez Herrera, E., Cash-Gibson, L., Caroz Armayones, J. M., Ruisoto, P., Zografos, C., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Social Determinants of Health and Health Services · doi:10.1177/27551938251343485 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilson, M. G., Nidumolu, A., Berditchevskaia, I., Gauvin, F.-P., Abelson, J., & Lavis, J. N.
- Affiliations
- McMaster University (CA)
- Dalhousie University (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Senior Scientific Lead, Citizen Engagement and Evidence Curation, McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Canada
- Corresponding author
- Wilson, Michael G
- Venue
- Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-09-14
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 59-66
- ISSN
- 1355-8196 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1060
- OpenAlex
- W2972658430
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Health Services Research & Policy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Queen Elizabeth Scholars in Strengthening Health Systems
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Public Health Policies and Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
- Keywords
- citizen deliberation, public deliberation, health policy, information synthesis, summarization, citizen participation, information framing, arts-based approaches, interactive presentations, health policy decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Scoping Reviews As Topic, Community Participation, Decision Making, Health Policy, Humans, Policy Making, Information Dissemination
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review