Dataset Information

Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

ABSTRACT: Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.

SUBMITTER: McWhirter RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4282883 | biostudies-other | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

McWhirter Rebekah E RE Critchley Christine R CR Nicol Dianne D Chalmers Don D Whitton Tess T Otlowski Margaret M Burgess Michael M MM Dickinson Joanne L JL

Journal of personalized medicine 20141120 4

Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part ...[more]

PMID: 25563457

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunity engagement is increasingly seen as crucial to achieving high quality, efficient and collaborative care. However, organisations are still searching for the best and most effective ways to engage citizens in the shaping of health and care services. This review highlights the barriers and enablers for engaging communities in the planning, designing, governing, and/or delivering of health and care services on the macro or meso level. It provides policymakers and professionals with evidence-based guiding principles to implement their own effective community engagement (CE) strategies.MethodsA Rapid Realist Review was conducted to investigate how interventions interact with contexts and mechanisms to influence the effectiveness of CE. A local reference panel, consisting of health and care professionals and experts, assisted in the development of the research questions and search strategy. The panel's input helped to refine the review's findings. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted.ResultsEight action-oriented guiding principles were identified: Ensure staff provide supportive and facilitative leadership to citizens based on transparency; foster a safe and trusting environment enabling citizens to provide input; ensure citizens' early involvement; share decision-making and governance control with citizens; acknowledge and address citizens' experiences of power imbalances between citizens and professionals; invest in citizens who feel they lack the skills and confidence to engage; create quick and tangible wins; take into account both citizens' and organisations' motivations.ConclusionsAn especially important thread throughout the CE literature is the influence of power imbalances and organisations' willingness, or not, to address such imbalances. The literature suggests that 'meaningful participation' of citizens can only be achieved if organisational processes are adapted to ensure that they are inclusive, accessible and supportive of citizens.

Project description:BackgroundClinical networks are being used widely to facilitate large system transformation in healthcare, by engagement of stakeholders throughout the health system. However, there are no available instruments that measure engagement in these networks.MethodsThe study purpose was to develop and assess the measurement properties of a multiprofessional tool to measure engagement in clinical network initiatives. Based on components of the International Association of Public Participation Spectrum and expert panel review, we developed 40 items for testing. The draft instrument was distributed to 1,668 network stakeholders across different governance levels (leaders, members, support, frontline stakeholders) in 9 strategic clinical networks in Alberta (January to July 2014). With data from 424 completed surveys (25.4% response rate), descriptive statistics, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson correlations, linear regression, multivariate analysis, and Cronbach alpha were conducted to assess reliability and validity of the scores.ResultsSixteen items were retained in the instrument. Exploratory factor analysis indicated a four-factor solution and accounted for 85.7% of the total variance in engagement with clinical network initiatives: global engagement, inform (provided with information), involve (worked together to address concerns), and empower (given final decision-making authority). All subscales demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach alpha 0.87 to 0.99). Both the confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis confirmed that inform, involve, and empower were all significant predictors of global engagement, with involve as the strongest predictor. Leaders had higher mean scores than frontline stakeholders, while members and support staff did not differ in mean scores.ConclusionsThis study provided foundational evidence for the use of this tool for assessing engagement in clinical networks. Further work is necessary to evaluate engagement in broader network functions and activities; to assess barriers and facilitators of engagement; and, to elucidate how the maturity of networks and other factors influence engagement.

Dataset Information

Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

Publications

Community engagement for big epidemiology: deliberative democracy as a tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets