• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

确定优先事项:公民陪审团能发挥作用吗?

Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries?

作者信息

Lenaghan J, New B, Mitchell E

机构信息

Institute for Public Policy Research, London.

出版信息

BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1591-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1591.

DOI:10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1591
PMID:8664672
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2351315/
Abstract

Citizens' juries are an attempt to meaningfully involve members of the public in decisions which affect them in their own communities. The Institute for Public Policy Research and Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority have recently piloted the first jury in the United Kingdom. Sixteen jurors sat for four days, hearing evidence from a number of expert witnesses. The jurors were asked to consider how priorities for health care should be set, according to what criteria, and to what extent the public should be involved in this process. This pilot was also an attempt to assess the process itself, and our initial evaluation indicates that, given enough time and information, the public is willing and able to contribute to the debate about priority setting in health care.

摘要

公民陪审团旨在让公众切实参与到影响其所在社区的决策中。公共政策研究所与剑桥和亨廷顿健康管理局最近在英国开展了首个陪审团试点。16名陪审员参加了为期四天的会议,听取了多位专家证人的证词。陪审员们被要求思考应如何确定医疗保健的优先事项、依据何种标准以及公众应在这一过程中参与到何种程度。此次试点也是对该过程本身的一次评估,我们的初步评估表明,在有足够时间和信息的情况下,公众愿意且能够为医疗保健优先事项设定的辩论做出贡献。

相似文献

1
Setting priorities: is there a role for citizens' juries?确定优先事项:公民陪审团能发挥作用吗?
BMJ. 1996 Jun 22;312(7046):1591-3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7046.1591.
2
Citizens' juries in planning research priorities: process, engagement and outcome.规划研究重点中的公民陪审团:过程、参与度与结果
Health Expect. 2008 Sep;11(3):272-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00502.x.
3
From passive subject to active agent: the potential of Citizens' Juries for nursing research.从被动参与者到积极推动者:公民陪审团在护理研究中的潜力。
Nurse Educ Today. 2007 Oct;27(7):788-95. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2006.10.012. Epub 2006 Dec 8.
4
Choices without reasons: citizens' juries and policy evaluation.无理由的选择:公民陪审团与政策评估
J Med Ethics. 2000 Aug;26(4):272-6. doi: 10.1136/jme.26.4.272.
5
Evaluating the use of citizens' juries in food policy: a case study of food regulation.评估公民陪审团在食品政策中的使用:以食品监管为例。
BMC Public Health. 2013 Jun 19;13:596. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-596.
6
Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury.让公众参与卫生技术评估的优先事项设定:公民陪审团的调查结果
Health Expect. 2008 Sep;11(3):282-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x.
7
Do consumer voices in health-care citizens' juries matter?医疗保健公民陪审团中的消费者声音重要吗?
Health Expect. 2016 Oct;19(5):1015-22. doi: 10.1111/hex.12397. Epub 2015 Sep 28.
8
The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: a systematic review.公民陪审团在卫生政策决策中的应用:系统评价。
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;109:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.005. Epub 2014 Mar 6.
9
Investigating the Extent to Which Patients Should Control Access to Patient Records for Research: A Deliberative Process Using Citizens' Juries.调查患者在多大程度上应控制用于研究的患者记录的访问权限:使用公民陪审团的审议过程
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Mar 28;20(3):e112. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7763.
10
Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries.让公众参与配给决策。公民陪审团的经验。
Health Policy. 1999 Oct;49(1-2):45-61. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(99)00042-1.

引用本文的文献

1
Mammography screening: Eliciting the voices of informed citizens.乳房X光检查筛查:倾听明智公民的声音。
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 9;20(1):e0317263. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317263. eCollection 2025.
2
Citizens from 13 countries share similar preferences for COVID-19 vaccine allocation priorities.来自 13 个国家的公民对 COVID-19 疫苗分配优先级有相似的偏好。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Sep 21;118(38). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2026382118.
3
Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A Citizens' Jury.公众对获得性脑损伤康复和护理内容的看法:公民陪审团。
Health Expect. 2021 Apr;24(2):352-362. doi: 10.1111/hex.13176. Epub 2020 Dec 2.
4
Should women aged 70-74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries.70-74 岁的女性是否应该被邀请参加筛查性乳房 X 光检查?两份澳大利亚社区陪审团报告。
BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 14;8(6):e021174. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021174.
5
Assessing the public acceptability of proposed policy interventions to reduce the misuse of antibiotics in Australia: A report on two community juries.评估澳大利亚减少抗生素滥用拟议政策干预措施的公众接受度:两个社区陪审团的报告。
Health Expect. 2018 Feb;21(1):90-99. doi: 10.1111/hex.12589. Epub 2017 Jun 30.
6
CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015.CJCheck 阶段 1:制定和测试用于报告社区陪审团的清单——德尔菲法流程和对 1996-2015 年发表的研究的分析。
Health Expect. 2017 Aug;20(4):626-637. doi: 10.1111/hex.12493. Epub 2016 Oct 5.
7
Involving a Citizens' Jury in Decisions on Individual Screening for Prostate Cancer.让公民陪审团参与前列腺癌个体筛查决策。
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 11;11(1):e0143176. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143176. eCollection 2016.
8
Evaluating the use of citizens' juries in food policy: a case study of food regulation.评估公民陪审团在食品政策中的使用:以食品监管为例。
BMC Public Health. 2013 Jun 19;13:596. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-596.
9
What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review.公众参与医疗保健政策的证据基础是什么?:一项系统综述的结果
Health Expect. 2015 Apr;18(2):153-65. doi: 10.1111/hex.12038. Epub 2012 Dec 18.
10
A CTSA agenda to advance methods for comparative effectiveness research.推进比较有效性研究方法的 CTSA 议程。
Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Jun;4(3):188-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00282.x.

本文引用的文献

1
Health care rationing: the public's debate.医疗保健资源分配:公众的辩论。
BMJ. 1996 Mar 16;312(7032):670-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7032.670.