IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v70y2010i6p896-903.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan

Author

Listed:
  • Deng, Chung-Yeh
  • Wu, Chia-Ling

Abstract

Echoing the advocates of deliberative methods sensitive to specific socio-political contexts, we designed the "civic groups forum" method and tested it in 2003 in Taiwan. Our goals were to design a participatory method that suited newly democratic countries and to engage people in discussing national health insurance premium reform in Taiwan. This innovative forum emphasized: (1) civic groups as the participants and (2) engaging a moderate number of participants. We combined and modified the methods of the consensus conference and deliberative polling to design the civic groups forum. Comprehensible reading materials, expert lectures, expert testimony, and group discussions were provided to enhance deliberative discussion of policy issues. A total of 74 group representatives from four types of civic groups--health care provider associations, labor unions, social welfare organizations, and patient organizations--participated. We conducted a before-and-after comparison to evaluate the method, using a self-administered questionnaire to collect data on participants' policy preferences, National Health Insurance policy literacy, comments, and socio-demographic characteristics. We also used in-depth interviews and participant observation to collect complementary information. After the forum, the social welfare and the patient organizations showed increased deliberation skills, empowerment, and confidence in policy involvement compared to the health care provider associations and the labor unions. We also found that when participants are civic group representatives, it is suitable to design an open-structured, early involvement, and participant-controlled format.

Suggested Citation

  • Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:6:p:896-903
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(09)00762-X
    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. Mariko Nishizawa, 2005. "Citizen deliberations on science and technology and their social environments: case study on the Japanese consensus conference on GM crops," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(6), pages 479-489, December.
    2. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    3. Luskin, Robert C. & Fishkin, James S. & Jowell, Roger, 2002. "Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 455-487, July.
    4. Abelson, Julia, 2001. "Understanding the role of contextual influences on local health-care decision making: case study results from Ontario, Canada," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 777-793, September.
    5. Thomas C. Beierle, 1999. "Using Social Goals To Evaluate Public Participation In Environmental Decisions," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 16(3‐4), pages 75-103, September.
    6. Little, Miles & Jordens, Christopher F. C. & Paul, Kim & Sayers, Emma-Jane & Cruickshank, Jane Ann & Stegeman, Jantine & Montgomery, Kathleen, 2002. "Discourse in different voices: reconciling N=1 and N=many," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 1079-1087, October.
    7. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Smith, Patricia & Martin, Elisabeth & Gauvin, Francois-Pierre, 2003. "Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 239-251, July.
    8. Thurston, Wilfreda E. & MacKean, Gail & Vollman, Ardene & Casebeer, Ann & Weber, Myron & Maloff, Bretta & Bader, Judy, 2005. "Public participation in regional health policy: a theoretical framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 237-252, September.
    9. Dobrow, Mark J. & Goel, Vivek & Upshur, R. E. G., 2004. "Evidence-based health policy: context and utilisation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 207-217, January.
    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. Boyko, Jennifer A. & Lavis, John N. & Abelson, Julia & Dobbins, Maureen & Carter, Nancy, 2012. "Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1938-1945.
    3. Baumann, Lisa Ann & Reinhold, Anna Katharina & Brütt, Anna Levke, 2022. "Public and patient involvement in health policy decision-making on the health system level – A scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(10), pages 1023-1038.

    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. Elberse, Janneke Elisabeth & Pittens, Carina Anna Cornelia Maria & de Cock Buning, Tjard & Broerse, Jacqueline Elisabeth Willy, 2012. "Patient involvement in a scientific advisory process: Setting the research agenda for medical products," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(2), pages 231-242.
    2. Abelson, Julia & Forest, Pierre-Gerlier & Eyles, John & Casebeer, Ann & Martin, Elisabeth & Mackean, Gail, 2007. "Examining the role of context in the implementation of a deliberative public participation experiment: Results from a Canadian comparative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2115-2128, May.
    3. Montesanti, Stephanie Rose & Abelson, Julia & Lavis, John N. & Dunn, James R., 2015. "The value of frameworks as knowledge translation mechanisms to guide community participation practice in Ontario CHCs," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 223-231.
    4. 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.
    5. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    6. Clare Bayley & Simon French, 2008. "Designing a Participatory Process for Stakeholder Involvement in a Societal Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 195-210, May.
    7. Thurston, Wilfreda E. & MacKean, Gail & Vollman, Ardene & Casebeer, Ann & Weber, Myron & Maloff, Bretta & Bader, Judy, 2005. "Public participation in regional health policy: a theoretical framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 237-252, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Lopes, Edilene & Carter, Drew & Street, Jackie, 2015. "Power relations and contrasting conceptions of evidence in patient-involvement processes used to inform health funding decisions in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 84-91.
    10. de Goede, Joyce & Putters, Kim & van Oers, Hans, 2012. "Utilization of epidemiological research for the development of local public health policy in the Netherlands: A case study approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 74(5), pages 707-714.
    11. Anita Gębska-Kuczerowska & Sudakshina Lahiri & Robert Gajda, 2020. "Bridging the Gap between Theory, Practice, and Policy: A Decision-Making Process Based on Public Health Evidence Feasible in Multi-Stage Research on Biological Risk Factors in Poland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-11, October.
    12. repec:cep:sticas:/159 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Baumann, Lisa Ann & Reinhold, Anna Katharina & Brütt, Anna Levke, 2022. "Public and patient involvement in health policy decision-making on the health system level – A scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(10), pages 1023-1038.
    14. Tania Burchardt, 2012. "Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements," CASE Papers case159, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    15. Jonas Lander & Tobias Hainz & Irene Hirschberg & Daniel Strech, 2014. "Current Practice of Public Involvement Activities in Biomedical Research and Innovation: A Systematic Qualitative Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Burchardt, Tania, 2012. "Deliberative research as a tool to make value judgements," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 43904, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Takeuchi Ayano, 2021. "A survey of methods for evaluating mini-publics," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-19, February.
    18. Sadie McEvoy & Frans H. M. van de Ven & Reinder Brolsma & Jill H. Slinger, 2019. "Evaluating a Planning Support System’s Use and Effects in Urban Adaptation: An Exploratory Case Study from Berlin, Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, December.
    19. Ir, Por & Bigdeli, Maryam & Meessen, Bruno & Van Damme, Wim, 2010. "Translating knowledge into policy and action to promote health equity: The Health Equity Fund policy process in Cambodia 2000-2008," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 200-209, August.
    20. Giuseppe Di Liddo & Annalisa Vinella, 2021. "Centralized standards and local taxation in municipal waste management," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(4), pages 603-619, December.
    21. Blume, Stuart & Tump, Janneke, 2010. "Evidence and policymaking: The introduction of MMR vaccine in the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(6), pages 1049-1055, September.

    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:socmed:v:70:y:2010:i:6:p:896-903. 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 (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.