Mitton Craig, Smith Neale, Peacock Stuart, Evoy Brian, Abelson Julia
University of British Columbia Okanagan, 3333 UniversityWay, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7, Canada.
Health Policy. 2009 Aug;91(3):219-28. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005. Epub 2009 Mar 3.
While much literature has debated public engagement in health care decision-making, there is no consensus on when public engagement should be sought and how it should be obtained. We conducted a scoping review to examine public engagement in one specific area: priority setting and resource allocation.
The review drew upon a broad range of health and non-health literature in an attempt to elicit what is known and not known on this topic, and through this to outline any guidance to assist decision-makers and identify where efforts for future research should be directed.
Governments appear to recognize benefits in consulting multiple publics using a range of methods, though more traditional approaches to engagement continue to predominate. There appears to be growing interest in deliberative approaches to public engagement, which are more commonly on-going rather than one-off and more apt to involve face-to-face contact. However, formal evaluation of public engagement efforts is rare. Also absent is any real effort to demonstrate how public views might be integrated with other decision inputs when allocating social resources.
While some strands can be taken to inform current priority setting activity, this scoping review identified many gaps and highlights numerous areas for further research.
尽管有大量文献探讨了公众参与医疗保健决策的问题,但对于何时应寻求公众参与以及应如何实现公众参与,尚未达成共识。我们进行了一项范围综述,以研究公众在一个特定领域的参与情况:确定优先事项和资源分配。
该综述借鉴了广泛的健康和非健康文献,试图了解关于这一主题已知和未知的内容,并据此概述任何有助于决策者的指导意见,同时确定未来研究工作应指向的方向。
政府似乎认识到采用多种方法咨询多个群体的益处,尽管更传统的参与方式仍然占主导地位。对公众参与的审议性方法的兴趣似乎在增加,这种方法更常见的是持续进行而非一次性的,并且更倾向于涉及面对面接触。然而,对公众参与努力的正式评估很少见。在分配社会资源时,也没有任何实际行动来表明公众意见如何与其他决策输入相结合。
虽然可以采用一些思路为当前的优先事项设定活动提供参考,但这项范围综述发现了许多差距,并突出了众多有待进一步研究的领域。