Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: Findings from a citizens' jury

Health Expectations

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 282-293

  Menon, Devidas ^a   Stafinski, Tania ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Citizens' jury; Health technology assessment; Priority setting; Public engagement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANADA; CONTENT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

ADULT; AGED; ALBERTA; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COMMUNITY HEALTH PLANNING; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GROUP PROCESSES; HEALTH PLANNING COUNCILS; HEALTH PLANNING GUIDELINES; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT; PROGRAM EVALUATION; RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 49749130471     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada - Final Report. Ottawa : Government of Canada, 2002. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/ HCC_Final_Report.pdf, accessed on 8 May 2008.
2. Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. The Health of Canadians - The Federal Role. Ottawa : Government of Canada, 2002. Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/soci-e/ rep-e/repoct02vol6-e.htm, accessed on 8 May 2008.
3. Premier's Advisory Council on Health. A Framework for Reform. Edmonton : Government of Alberta, 2002. Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/ Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0133-e.htm, accessed on 8 May 2008.
4. Clair Commission. Emerging Solutions - Report and Recommendations. Quebec City : Government of Quebec, 2000. Available at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/ Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/prb0037-e.htm, accessed on 8 May 2008.
5. Maioni A. Emerging Solutions: Quebec's Clair Commission Report and Health Care Reform. Ottawa : Canadian Policy Research Network, 2001. Available at: http://www.cprn.com/documents/18418_en.pdf, accessed on 8 May 2008.
6. Abelson J, Eyles J, McLeod C, Collins P, Forest P. Does deliberation make a difference? A citizens' panel study of health goals priority setting. Health Policy, 2003 66 : 95 106.
7. Abelson J, Lomas J, Eyles J, Birch S, Veenstra G. Does the community want devolved authority? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 1995 153 : 3 12.
8. Abelson J, Gauvin FP. Citizen Engagement: One Route to Health Care Accountability. Ottawa : Canadian Policy Research Networks, 2004. Available at: http://www.cprn.com/documents/28104_en.pdf, accessed on 8 May 2008.
9. Maxwell J, Rosell S, Forest P. Giving citizens a voice in healthcare policy in Canada. British Medical Journal, 2005 326 : 1031 1033.
10. The OECD Health Project. Health Technology and Decision-Making. Paris : OECD Publishing, 2005.
11. Morgan S, Hurley J. Influences on the Health Care Technology Cost Driver. Discussion Paper No. 14. Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada. Ottawa : Government of Canada, 2004. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc. ca/english/pdf/romanow/pdfs/14_Morgan_E.pdf, accessed on 8 May 2008.
12. Lubitz J. Health, technology and medical care quality. Health Affairs, 2005 24 : R81 R85.
13. Flood C, Tuohy C, Stabile M. What's in and out of Medicare? Who Decides? Toronto : Institute for Research on Public Policy, 2004.
14. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A. Health technology assessment: history and demand. Journal of Public Health and Medicine, 2003 25 : 98 101.
15. Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis JL, Hivon M. Redefining HTA in Canada: diversification of products and contextualization of findings. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2004 20 : 325 336.
16. Chinitz D. Health technology assessment in four countries: response from political science. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2004 20 : 55 60.
17. Coulter A. Perspectives on health technology assessment: response from the patient's perspective. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2004 20 : 92 96.
18. Johri M, Lehoux P. The great escape? Prospects for regulating access to technology through health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2003 19 : 179 193.
19. Laupacis A. Inclusion of drugs in provincial drug benefit programs: who is making these decisions and are they the right ones? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2002 166 : 44 47.
20. Abelson J, Giacomini M, Lehoux P, Gauvin FP. Bringing 'the public' into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: from principles to practice. Health Policy, 2007 82 : 37 50.
21. Menon D, Fung F, Harstall C, O'Connell P. The development of a health technology assessment program. The case of Alberta. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 1995 11 : 93 101.
22. Pivik J, Rode E, Ward C. A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment in Canada. Health Policy, 2004 69 : 253 268.
23. Allsop J, Jones K, Baggott R. Health consumer groups in the UK: a new social movement? Sociology of Health and Illness, 2004 26 : 737 756.
24. Contandriopoulos A. A sociological perspective on public participation in health care. Social Science and Medicine, 2004 58 : 321 330.
25. Hogg C, Williamson C. Whose interests do lay people represent? Towards an understanding of the role of lay people as members of committees. Health Expectations, 2001 4 : 2 9.
26. Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J et al. The public is too subjective: public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Social Science and Medicine, 2002 54 : 1825 1837.
27. Lomas J. Reluctant rationers: public input into health care priorities. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1997 2 : 103 111.
28. Lupton C, Peckham S, Taylor P. Managing Public Involvement in Health Care Purchasing. Buckingham : Open University Press, 1998.
29. Martin D, Abelson J, Singer P. Participation in health care priority setting through the eyes of the participants. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 2002 7 : 222 229.
30. Mullen PM. Public involvement in health care priority setting: are the methods appropriate and valid? In : Coulter A, Ham C (eds) The Global Challenge of Health Care Rationing. Buckingham : Open University Press, 2000 : 163 174.
31. Health Canada. Health Canada Policy Toolkit for Public Involvement in Decision-Making. Ottawa : Health Canada, 2000.
32. Sullivan M, Scattolon Y. Health policy planning: a look at consumer involvement in Nova Scotia. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 1995 86 : 317 320.
33. Wiseman V, Mooney G, Berry G, Tang KC. Involving the general public in priority setting: experiences from Australia. Social Science and Medicine, 2003 56 : 1001 1012.
34. Royle J, Oliver S. Consumer involvement in the health technology assessment program. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2004 20 : 493 497.
35. Coote A, Lenaghan J. Citizens' Juries: Theory into Practice. London : Institute for Public Policy Research, 1997.
36. Iredale R, Longley M, Thomas C, Shaw A. What choices should we be able to make about designer babies? A citizens' jury of young people in South Wales. Health Expectations, 2006 9 : 207 217.
37. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E, Seymour-Smith S. Opening the Box: Evaluating the Citizens Council of NICE. Buckingham : Open University Press, 2005.
38. McIver S. Health Debate? An Independent Evaluation of Citizens' Juries in Health Settings. London : King's Fund Publishing, 1998.
39. Armour A. The citizens' jury model of public participation. In : Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht : Kluwer, 1996 : 175 188.
40. Aldred J, Jacobs M. Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens' jury. Ecological Economics, 2000 34 : 217 232.
41. Barnes JA. Building a Deliberative Democracy: An Evaluation of Two Citizens Juries. London : Institute for Public Policy Research, 1999.
42. Dunkerley D, Glasner P. Empowering the public? Citizens juries and the new genetic technologies. Critical Public Health, 1998 8 : 181 192.
43. Edmond G, Mercer D. Scientific literacy and the jury: reconsidering jury 'competence'. Public Understanding of Science, 1997 6 : 327 359.
44. Smith G, Wales C. Citizens juries and deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 2000 48 : 51 65.
45. Wakeford T. Citizens juries: a radical alternative for social research. Social Research Update, 2002 37 : 1 5.
46. Borowski H, Brehault J, Hailey D. Linking evidence from health technology assessments to policy and decision-making: the Alberta model. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Healthcare, 2007 23 : 155 161.
47. Oortwijn W, Vondeling H, van Barnesveld T, van Vugt C, Bouter LM. Priority-setting for health technology assessment in the Netherlands: principles and practice. Health Policy, 2002 62 : 227 242.
48. Noorani HZ, Husereau DR, Boudreau R. Priority setting for health technology assessments: A systematic review of current practical approaches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2007 23 : 310 315.
49. Douw K, Vondeling H. Selection of new health technologies for assessment aimed at informing decision-making: a survey among horizon scanning systems. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2006 22 : 177 183.