Dataset Information

How a deliberative approach includes women in the decisions of screening mammography: a citizens' jury feasibility study in Andalusia, Spain.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To verify whether a citizens' jury study is feasible to the Andalusian population and to know if women, when better informed, are able to answer the research question of whether the Andalusian Public Health System must continue offering screening mammography to women aged 50-69. The reasons for the pertinent decision and recommendations to the political authorities will be stated.

Design

Qualitative research study with the methodology of citizens' jury.

Setting

Breast cancer screening programme in Andalusia (Spain).

Participants

Thirteen women aged 50-69 with secondary school or higher education accepted to participate as a jury. Two epidemiologists were the expert witnesses. The main researcher was the neutral moderator.

Interventions

Jury met on Monday, 15 February 2016. The moderator indicated to the jury that it had to assess the screening programme's key benefits and main harm. On Tuesday, 16 February, the expert witnesses positioned for and against the programme. On Thursday, 18 February, the jury deliberated, reached final conclusions, submitted its vote and stated its recommendations to politicians. The deliberation session was transcribed and analysed with the support of ATLAS.ti.5.2 software.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Feasibility in the Andalusian population, women's vote and opinion, reasons for votes and recommendations to political authorities.

Results

Eleven participants voted yes and two voted no. There are three reasons to vote 'yes': health, the test nature, and individual freedom. Some women invoke the lack of efficacy and the cost to justify their negative vote, at least in universal terms. On completion, they made suggestions to be submitted to the pertinent authorities for the improvement of information, psychology services and research.

Conclusions

The deliberative strategy is feasible and causes a favourable positioning regarding screening mammography, although information changes the opinion of some women, who desire informed decision making and to keep or increase medicalisation in their lives.

SUBMITTER: Baena-Canada JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5942446 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How a deliberative approach includes women in the decisions of screening mammography: a citizens' jury feasibility study in Andalusia, Spain.

Baena-Cañada José M JM Luque-Ribelles Violeta V Quílez-Cutillas Alicia A Rosado-Varela Petra P Benítez-Rodríguez Encarnación E Márquez-Calderón Soledad S Rivera-Bautista Juan Manuel JM

BMJ open 20180505 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To verify whether a citizens' jury study is feasible to the Andalusian population and to know if women, when better informed, are able to answer the research question of whether the Andalusian Public Health System must continue offering screening mammography to women aged 50-69. The reasons for the pertinent decision and recommendations to the political authorities will be stated.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative research study with the methodology of citizens' jury.<h4>Setting</h4>B ...[more]

PMID: 29730621

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionDoes an informed group of citizens endorse the clinical use of mitochondrial donation in a country where this is not currently permitted?Summary answerAfter hearing balanced expert evidence and having opportunity for deliberation, a majority (11/14) of participants in a citizens' jury believed that children should be able to be born using mitochondrial donation.What is known alreadyResearch suggests that patients, oocyte donors and health professionals support mitochondrial donation to prevent transmission of mitochondrial disease. Less is known about public acceptability of this novel reproductive technology, especially from evidence using deliberative methods.Study design, size, durationThis study comprised a citizens' jury, an established method for determining the views of a well-informed group of community members. The jury had 14 participants, and ran over one and a half days in 2017.Participants/materials, setting, methodsJurors were members of the public with no experience of mitochondrial disease. They heard and engaged with relevant evidence and were asked to answer the question: 'Should Australia allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation?'Main results and the role of chanceEleven jurors decided that Australia should allow children to be born following mitochondrial donation; 7 of whom added conditions such as the need to limit who can access the intervention. Three jurors decided that children should not (or not yet) be born using this intervention. All jurors were particularly interested in the reliability of evidence, licensing/regulatory mechanisms and the rights of children to access information about their oocyte donors.Limitations, reasons for cautionJurors' views were well informed and reflected critical deliberation and discussion, but are not intended to be representative of the whole population.Wider implications of the findingsWhen presented with high quality evidence, combined with opportunities to undertake structured deliberation of novel reproductive technologies, members of the public are able to engage in detailed discussions. This is the first study to use an established deliberative method to gauge public views towards mitochondrial donation.Study funding/competing interest(s)This study was funded by a University of Sydney Industry and Community Collaboration Seed Award (2017), which was awarded contingent on additional funding from the Mito Foundation. Additional funding was provided by the Mito Foundation. The Foundation was not involved in jury facilitation or deliberation, nor analysis of research data.Trial registration numberNot applicable.

Project description:ObjectiveProstate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on men's knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening.DesignRandom allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment.SettingParticipants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings.ParticipantsTwenty-six men aged 50-70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer.InterventionThe control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions.Main outcome and measuresOur primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer.ResultsAnalyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=-0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001).ConclusionsEvidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects men's individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions.Trial registration numberAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001079831).

Dataset Information

How a deliberative approach includes women in the decisions of screening mammography: a citizens' jury feasibility study in Andalusia, Spain.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

How a deliberative approach includes women in the decisions of screening mammography: a citizens' jury feasibility study in Andalusia, Spain.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets