Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
Centre for Epidemic Interventions Research, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
BMJ Glob Health. 2024 Jun 3;9(6):e014404. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014404.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments and health authorities faced tough decisions about infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing, face masks and travel. Judgements underlying those decisions require democratic input, as well as expert input. The aim of this review is to inform decisions about how best to achieve public participation in decisions about public health and social interventions in the context of a pandemic or other public health emergencies.
To systematically review examples of public participation in decisions by governments and health authorities about how to control the COVID-19 pandemic.
We searched Participedia and relevant databases in August 2022. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and one author screened publications promoted to full text. One author extracted data from included reports using a standard data-extraction form. A second author checked 10% of the extraction forms. We conducted a structured synthesis using framework analysis.
We included 24 reports (18 from Participedia). Most took place in high-income countries (n=23), involved 'consulting' the public (n=17) and involved public meetings (usually online). Two initiatives reported explicit support for critical thinking. 11 initiatives were formally evaluated (only three reported impacts). Many initiatives did not contribute to a decision, and 17 initiatives did not include any explicit decision-making criteria.
Decisions about how to manage the COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly everyone. While public participation in those decisions had the potential to improve the quality of the judgements and decisions that were made, build trust, improve adherence and help ensure transparency and accountability, few examples of such initiatives have been reported and most of those have not been formally evaluated. Identified initiatives did point out potential good practices related to online engagement, crowdsourcing and addressing potential power imbalance. Future research should address improved reporting of initiatives, explicit decision-making criteria, support for critical thinking, engagement of marginalised groups and decision-makers and communication with the public.
在 COVID-19 大流行期间，政府和卫生当局在感染预防和控制措施（如社交距离、口罩和旅行）方面面临艰难的决策。这些决策的基础判断需要民主投入，也需要专家投入。本综述的目的是为有关如何在大流行或其他公共卫生紧急情况下最好地实现公众参与公共卫生和社会干预决策的决策提供信息。
系统回顾政府和卫生当局就如何控制 COVID-19 大流行做出决策时公众参与的例子。
我们于 2022 年 8 月在 Participedia 和相关数据库中进行了搜索。两名作者审查了标题和摘要，一名作者筛选了推广至全文的出版物。一名作者使用标准的数据提取表格从纳入的报告中提取数据。第二名作者检查了 10%的提取表格。我们使用框架分析进行了结构化综合。
我们纳入了 24 份报告（来自 Participedia 的 18 份）。大多数报告发生在高收入国家（n=23），涉及“咨询”公众（n=17）并涉及公众会议（通常是在线的）。有两项倡议报告明确支持批判性思维。有 11 项倡议进行了正式评估（只有三项报告了影响）。许多倡议没有促成决策，有 17 项倡议没有包括任何明确的决策标准。
管理 COVID-19 大流行的决策几乎影响到每个人。虽然公众参与这些决策有可能提高所做判断和决策的质量、建立信任、提高遵从性并有助于确保透明度和问责制，但报告的此类倡议很少，而且大多数都没有经过正式评估。确定的倡议确实指出了与在线参与、众包和解决潜在权力失衡相关的潜在良好实践。未来的研究应解决倡议报告的改进、明确的决策标准、对批判性思维的支持、边缘化群体和决策者的参与以及与公众的沟通。
PROSPERO 注册号：358991。
