Suppr超能文献

公众审议方法在收集医疗保健问题意见方面的有效性:一项随机试验的结果。

Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial.

作者信息

Carman Kristin L, Mallery Coretta, Maurer Maureen, Wang Grace, Garfinkel Steve, Yang Manshu, Gilmore Dierdre, Windham Amy, Ginsburg Marjorie, Sofaer Shoshanna, Gold Marthe, Pathak-Sen Ela, Davies Todd, Siegel Joanna, Mangrum Rikki, Fernandez Jessica, Richmond Jennifer, Fishkin James, Siu Chao Alice

机构信息

American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.

American Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007, USA.

出版信息

Soc Sci Med. 2015 May;133:11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.024. Epub 2015 Mar 14.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Public deliberation elicits informed perspectives on complex issues that are values-laden and lack technical solutions. This Deliberative Methods Demonstration examined the effectiveness of public deliberation for obtaining informed public input regarding the role of medical evidence in U.S. healthcare. We conducted a 5-arm randomized controlled trial, assigning participants to one of four deliberative methods or to a reading materials only (RMO) control group. The four deliberative methods reflected important differences in implementation, including length of the deliberative process and mode of interaction. The project convened 76 groups between August and November 2012 in four U.S.

LOCATIONS

Chicago, IL; Sacramento, CA; Silver Spring, MD; and Durham, NC, capturing a sociodemographically diverse sample with specific attention to ensuring inclusion of Hispanic, African-American, and elderly participants. Of 1774 people recruited, 75% participated: 961 took part in a deliberative method and 377 participants comprised the RMO control group. To assess effectiveness of the deliberative methods overall and of individual methods, we evaluated whether mean pre-post changes on a knowledge and attitude survey were statistically different from the RMO control using ANCOVA. In addition, we calculated mean scores capturing participant views of the impact and value of deliberation. Participating in deliberation increased participants' knowledge of evidence and comparative effectiveness research and shifted participants' attitudes regarding the role of evidence in decision-making. When comparing each deliberative method to the RMO control group, all four deliberative methods resulted in statistically significant change on at least one knowledge or attitude measure. These findings were underscored by self-reports that the experience affected participants' opinions. Public deliberation offers unique potential for those seeking informed input on complex, values-laden topics affecting broad public constituencies.

摘要

未标注

公众审议能就充满价值观且缺乏技术解决方案的复杂问题引出有见地的观点。本次审议方法示范研究考察了公众审议在获取公众关于医学证据在美国医疗保健中作用的有见地意见方面的有效性。我们进行了一项五组随机对照试验,将参与者分配到四种审议方法之一或仅阅读材料(RMO)对照组。这四种审议方法在实施方面存在重要差异,包括审议过程的时长和互动模式。该项目于2012年8月至11月在美国的四个地点召集了76个小组:伊利诺伊州芝加哥市;加利福尼亚州萨克拉门托市;马里兰州银泉市;北卡罗来纳州达勒姆市,获取了一个社会人口统计学上多样化的样本,并特别关注确保纳入西班牙裔、非裔美国人和老年参与者。在招募的1774人中,75%的人参与了:961人参与了一种审议方法,377名参与者组成了RMO对照组。为了评估审议方法总体以及个别方法的有效性,我们使用协方差分析评估了知识和态度调查中前后平均变化是否与RMO对照组存在统计学差异。此外,我们计算了反映参与者对审议影响和价值看法的平均得分。参与审议增加了参与者对证据和比较效果研究的了解,并改变了参与者对证据在决策中作用的态度。将每种审议方法与RMO对照组进行比较时,所有四种审议方法在至少一项知识或态度指标上都产生了统计学上的显著变化。参与者的自我报告强调了这种经历影响了他们的观点,这进一步证实了这些发现。对于那些寻求就影响广大公众群体的复杂、充满价值观的话题获取有见地意见的人来说,公众审议具有独特的潜力。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验