Cited by 7Political Theory and DemocracyPublic Health Policies and EducationMental Health and Patient Involvement

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Identifying approaches for synthesizing and summarizing information to support informed citizen deliberations in health policy: a scoping review

Wilson, Michael G, Nidumolu, Aditya, Berditchevskaia, Inna, Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, Abelson, Julia, Lavis, John N·2020·Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

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

Crossref · 10.1177/1355819619872221

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. 10.1002/hast.30 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.024 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.003 · DOI
  4. 10.1353/hpu.2015.0021 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/hast.27 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X · DOI
  7. 10.1177/0162243903259197 · DOI
  8. 10.1177/016224390002500101 · DOI
  9. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630 · DOI
  10. 10.1080/1364557032000119616 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1002/hast.26 · DOI
  12. 10.1017/S0266462313000299 · DOI
  13. 10.1038/ejhg.2012.300 · DOI
  14. 10.2217/17410541.5.3.285 · DOI
  15. Gauvin FP., 2017, Citizen panels program
  16. 10.1007/s10897-016-9987-0 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.10.012 · DOI
  18. 10.1186/s12913-016-1870-z · DOI
  19. 10.1007/s10728-009-0113-4 · DOI
  20. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00701.x · DOI
  21. 10.1089/gtmb.2013.0044 · DOI
  22. 10.1007/s40271-017-0238-8 · DOI
  23. 10.1371/journal.pone.0143176 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.10.009 · DOI
  25. Chafe R, 2011, Canad Fam Phys, 57, e68
  26. 10.1017/S0266462310000024 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.01.044 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.10.053 · DOI
  29. 10.1007/s11948-002-0010-9 · DOI
  30. 10.1007/s11948-004-0068-7 · DOI
  31. 10.1002/ajmg.a.34414 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/0963662509335410 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x · DOI
  34. 10.3390/ijerph110302456 · DOI
  35. 10.1089/bio.2011.0029 · DOI
  36. 10.1159/000167801 · DOI
  37. 10.1159/000279621 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.026 · DOI
  39. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.08.007 · DOI
  40. Pricewaterhouse Coopers, MASS LBP, 2011, Public priorities for Ontario's health system: a report of the citizens' reference panel on Ontario health services
  41. 10.1136/emermed-2015-205663 · DOI
  42. 10.1016/j.jcpo.2014.07.002 · DOI
  43. 10.1186/1748-5908-7-101 · DOI
  44. 10.1177/0963662510385062 · DOI
  45. Gauvin FP, 2013, Citizen brief: improving access to palliative care in Ontario
  46. Gauvin FP, 2013, Evidence brief: improving end-of-life communication and decision-making in Ontario
  47. 10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1112 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.03.001 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.029 · DOI
  50. The Jefferson Center, 2004, Citizens jury handbook
  51. 10.1016/j.jval.2015.05.012 · DOI
  52. 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00562.x · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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