Lehoux Pascale, Proulx Sébastien
Full Professor, Department of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, University of Montreal, Institute of Public Health Research of University of Montreal (IRSPUM), Montreal, QC.
Assistant Professor, Department of Design, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Healthc Policy. 2019 May;14(4):28-38. doi: 10.12927/hcpol.2019.25858.
While public involvement in health policy is gaining traction around the world, deciding whether practitioners of public involvement should encourage participants to deliberate from a personal or a collective perspective remains an object of contention. Drawing on an empirical study, the aim of this article is to generate methodological insights into these two perspectives. Our qualitative analyses illustrate how members of the public contributed differently to deliberations about the value of health innovations by alternatively sharing views as public representatives and as potential users. When engaging as public representatives, participants raised important collective concerns, and, when engaging as potential users, participants brought concrete details and contextual nuances to the group exchanges. Because these perspectives entail different yet mutually challenging ways of appraising health innovations, public engagement practitioners should foster both personal and collective perspectives.
虽然公众参与卫生政策在全球范围内越来越受到关注，但决定公众参与的从业者是否应鼓励参与者从个人或集体角度进行审议，仍是一个有争议的问题。基于一项实证研究，本文旨在对这两种视角产生方法上的见解。我们的定性分析表明，公众成员作为公共代表和潜在用户交替分享观点时，对健康创新价值的审议贡献方式有所不同。当作为公共代表参与时，参与者提出了重要的集体关切；而当作为潜在用户参与时，参与者为小组交流带来了具体细节和背景细微差别。由于这些视角需要不同但相互挑战的方式来评估健康创新，公众参与从业者应同时促进个人和集体视角。
