IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v85y2008i3p314-320.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: The role of citizens' deliberation

Author

Listed:
  • Paul, Charlotte
  • Nicholls, Rachel
  • Priest, Patricia
  • McGee, Rob

Abstract

Objective To test a method of assessing whether a community of interest - when well informed - would be prepared to support or reject a public policy decision about cancer screening. In particular, whether the New Zealand government should offer free mammography screening to all women aged 40-49 years.Methods Eleven women aged from 40 to 49 years, randomly selected from the electoral roll, agreed to participate in trial of a citizens' jury: a deliberative method of gathering the views of the public. Only selected aspects of the jury method were trialled. Participants met over a day and a half to hear evidence from expert witnesses with differing views and to deliberate the verdict.Results All but one woman changed their minds during the jury process, and voted against government provision of mammography screening in this age group. The main reasons reported were the inaccuracy of the test and the potential for harm, and the lack of firm evidence of saving lives in this age group.Conclusions A deliberative 'citizens' jury' approach is a feasible way of eliciting a well informed, considered community view about screening or other population health initiatives. Pro-screening views of affected populations may change when individuals are given accurate information and enabled to deliberate about benefits and harms. This method could be used to determine how complex benefits and harms are weighed by affected populations, particularly where experts and advocacy groups disagree.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul, Charlotte & Nicholls, Rachel & Priest, Patricia & McGee, Rob, 2008. "Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: The role of citizens' deliberation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 314-320, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:85:y:2008:i:3:p:314-320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168-8510(07)00196-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Graham Smith & Corinne Wales, 2000. "Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(1), pages 51-65, March.
    2. Lenaghan, Jo, 1999. "Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience of citizens juries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 45-61, September.
    3. Aldred, Jonathan & Jacobs, Michael, 2000. "Citizens and wetlands: evaluating the Ely citizens' jury," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 217-232, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Carman, Kristin L. & Mallery, Coretta & Maurer, Maureen & Wang, Grace & Garfinkel, Steve & Yang, Manshu & Gilmore, Dierdre & Windham, Amy & Ginsburg, Marjorie & Sofaer, Shoshanna & Gold, Marthe & Path, 2015. "Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 11-20.
    2. Parker, Lisa, 2017. "Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 793-799.
    3. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.
    4. Abelson, Julia & Tripp, Laura & Sussman, Jonathan, 2018. "‘I just want to be able to make a choice’: Results from citizen deliberations about mammography screening in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(12), pages 1364-1371.
    5. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.
    6. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Damien French & Michael Laver, 2009. "Participation Bias, Durable Opinion Shifts and Sabotage through Withdrawal in Citizens' Juries," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 422-450, June.
    2. Hugh Ward & Aletta Norval & Todd Landman & Jules Pretty, 2003. "Open Citizens’ Juries and the Politics of Sustainability," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(2), pages 282-299, June.
    3. Street, Jackie & Duszynski, Katherine & Krawczyk, Stephanie & Braunack-Mayer, Annette, 2014. "The use of citizens' juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 1-9.
    4. Kenyon, Wendy, 2007. "Evaluating flood risk management options in Scotland: A participant-led multi-criteria approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 70-81, October.
    5. Bunse, Lukas & Rendon, Olivia & Luque, Sandra, 2015. "What can deliberative approaches bring to the monetary valuation of ecosystem services? A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 88-97.
    6. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2003. "Drug reimbursement in Finland--a case of explicit prioritising in special categories," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 169-177, November.
    7. repec:elg:eechap:14395_25 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Mark Pennington, 2003. "Hayekian Political Economy and the Limits of Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 722-739, December.
    9. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5405 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    11. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 627-649, December.
    12. Maria Cerreta & Gaia Daldanise & Ludovica La Rocca & Simona Panaro, 2021. "Triggering Active Communities for Cultural Creative Cities: The “Hack the City” Play ReCH Mission in the Salerno Historic Centre (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-22, October.
    13. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    14. Wendy Proctor & Martin Drechsler, 2006. "Deliberative Multicriteria Evaluation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, April.
    15. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    16. Coburn, Josie & Bone, Frederique & Hopkins, Michael M. & Stirling, Andy & Mestre-Ferrandiz, Jorge & Arapostathis, Stathis & Llewelyn, Martin J., 2021. "Appraising research policy instrument mixes: a multicriteria mapping study in six European countries of diagnostic innovation to manage antimicrobial resistance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    17. Vuorenkoski, Lauri & Toiviainen, Hanna & Hemminki, Elina, 2008. "Decision-making in priority setting for medicines--A review of empirical studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 1-9, April.
    18. Anna Scolobig & Michael Thompson & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer, 2016. "Compromise not consensus: designing a participatory process for landslide risk mitigation," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 81(1), pages 45-68, April.
    19. Alvarez-Farizo, Begona & Hanley, Nick & Barberan, Ramon & Lazaro, Angelina, 2007. "Choice modeling at the "market stall": Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 743-751, February.
    20. Magaji, Sule & Eke, Chukwuemeka Ifegwu, 2015. "An Economic Assessment of the Impact of ICT on Performance Indicators of Water Resource Management in Africa: A Suggested Strategy for avoiding the eminent International Water War," African Journal of Economic Review, African Journal of Economic Review, vol. 3(1), January.
    21. Brian Witt, 2019. "Evaluating the Effects of a Minimalist Deliberative Framework on the Willingness to Participate in a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-26, June.
    22. Christos Zografos & Richard B. Howarth, 2010. "Deliberative Ecological Economics for Sustainability Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(11), pages 1-19, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:85:y:2008:i:3:p:314-320. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.