Degeling Chris, Rychetnik Lucie, Street Jackie, Thomas Rae, Carter Stacy M
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, School of Public Health, K25, University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
School of Medicine Sydney, The University of Notre Dame, Broadway, NSW, 2077, Australia; Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, School of Public Health, K25, University of Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;179:166-171. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.03.003. Epub 2017 Mar 2.
Citizens'/community juries [CJs] engage members of the public in policy decision-making processes. CJs can be employed to develop policy responses to health problems that require the consideration of both community values and scientific evidence. Based on the principles of deliberative democracy, recent reviews indicate that findings from CJs have successfully been used to influence health policy decision-making. Despite this evidence of success, there appears to be a gap between the goals of health researchers who organize CJs and the needs of policy actors and decision makers. Drawing on our experiences working with CJs and recent research on CJ methods, we describe a synopsis of the current state of the art organized around four key questions, and informed by insights from deliberative theory and critical policy studies. Our intention is to stimulate further discussion as to the types of health policy questions that can be usefully addressed through public deliberation, and provide guidance on the methodological and political dimensions that need to be considered in deciding whether a CJ is an appropriate approach for informing a policy decision-making process.
公民/社区陪审团（CJs）让公众参与政策决策过程。CJs可用于制定应对健康问题的政策措施，这些措施需要同时考虑社区价值观和科学证据。基于协商民主的原则，近期的综述表明，CJs的结果已成功用于影响健康政策决策。尽管有成功的证据，但组织CJs的健康研究人员的目标与政策行动者和决策者的需求之间似乎存在差距。借鉴我们与CJs合作的经验以及近期对CJ方法的研究，我们围绕四个关键问题描述了当前的技术现状概要，并参考了协商理论和批判性政策研究的见解。我们的目的是激发关于哪些健康政策问题可以通过公众协商有效解决的进一步讨论，并为在决定CJ是否是为政策决策过程提供信息的合适方法时需要考虑的方法和政治层面提供指导。
