School of Population Health, The University of Adelaide, Australia.
School of Paediatrics & Reproductive Health, Discipline of Paediatrics, The University of Adelaide, Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
Deliberative inclusive approaches, such as citizen juries, have been used to engage citizens on a range of issues in health care and public health. Researchers engaging with the public to inform policy and practice have adapted the citizen jury method in a variety of ways. The nature and impact of these adaptations has not been evaluated. We systematically searched Medline (PubMED), CINAHL and Scopus databases to identify deliberative inclusive methods, particularly citizens' juries and their adaptations, deployed in health research. Identified studies were evaluated focussing on principles associated with deliberative democracy: inclusivity, deliberation and active citizenship. We examined overall process, recruitment, evidence presentation, documentation and outputs in empirical studies, and the relationship of these elements to theoretical explications of deliberative inclusive methods. The search yielded 37 papers describing 66 citizens' juries. The review demonstrated that the citizens' jury model has been extensively adapted. Inclusivity has been operationalised with sampling strategies that aim to recruit representative juries, although these efforts have produced mixed results. Deliberation has been supported through use of steering committees and facilitators to promote fair interaction between jurors. Many juries were shorter duration than originally recommended, limiting opportunity for constructive dialogue. With respect to citizenship, few juries' rulings were considered by decision-making bodies thereby limiting transfer into policy and practice. Constraints in public policy process may preclude use of the 'ideal' citizens' jury with potential loss of an effective method for informed community engagement. Adapted citizens' jury models provide an alternative: however, this review demonstrates that special attention should be paid to recruitment, independent oversight, jury duration and moderation.
协商性包容方法，如公民陪审团，已被用于就医疗保健和公共卫生领域的各种问题让公民参与其中。研究人员与公众合作，以告知政策和实践，他们以各种方式调整了公民陪审团方法。这些调整的性质和影响尚未得到评估。我们系统地搜索了 Medline（PubMed）、CINAHL 和 Scopus 数据库，以确定在健康研究中使用的协商性包容方法，特别是公民陪审团及其改编版。评估了确定的研究，重点关注与协商民主相关的原则：包容性、审议和积极公民身份。我们检查了实证研究中的总体过程、招募、证据展示、文件记录和产出，以及这些要素与协商包容方法的理论解释之间的关系。搜索结果产生了 37 篇描述 66 个公民陪审团的论文。该审查表明，公民陪审团模式已经得到了广泛的改编。包容性已通过旨在招募代表性陪审团的抽样策略来实施，尽管这些努力产生了好坏参半的结果。通过使用指导委员会和促进者来促进陪审员之间的公平互动，支持了审议。许多陪审团的持续时间都短于最初建议的时间，限制了建设性对话的机会。就公民身份而言，很少有陪审团的裁决被决策机构考虑，从而限制了向政策和实践的转移。公共政策过程中的限制可能会排除使用“理想”的公民陪审团，从而可能失去一种有效的知情社区参与方法。改编后的公民陪审团模式提供了一种替代方案：然而，本审查表明，应特别注意招募、独立监督、陪审团持续时间和调解。
