jueves, 23 de abril de 2015

Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from a randomized trial. - PubMed - NCBI

2015 Mar 14;133:11-20. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.03.024. [Epub ahead of print]

Effectiveness of public deliberation methods for gathering input on issues in healthcare: Results from arandomized trial.

Carman KL1, Mallery C2, Maurer M2, Wang G2, Garfinkel S2, Yang M2, Gilmore D2, Windham A2, Ginsburg M3, Sofaer S2, Gold M4, Pathak-Sen E5, Davies T6,Siegel J7, Mangrum R2, Fernandez J2, Richmond J2, Fishkin J8, Siu Chao A8.

Author information

Abstract

Public deliberation elicits informed perspectives on complex issues that are values-laden and lack technical solutions. This Deliberative Methods Demonstration examined the effectiveness of public deliberation for obtaining informed public input regarding the role of medical evidence in U.S. healthcare. We conducted a 5-arm randomized controlled trial, assigning participants to one of four deliberative methods or to a reading materials only (RMO) control group. The four deliberative methods reflected important differences in implementation, including length of the deliberative process and mode of interaction. The project convened 76 groups between August and November 2012 in four U.S. locations: Chicago, IL; Sacramento, CA; Silver Spring, MD; and Durham, NC, capturing a sociodemographically diverse sample with specific attention to ensuring inclusion of Hispanic, African-American, and elderly participants. Of 1774 people recruited, 75% participated: 961 took part in a deliberative method and 377 participants comprised the RMO control group. To assess effectiveness of the deliberative methods overall and of individual methods, we evaluated whether mean pre-post changes on a knowledge and attitude survey were statistically different from the RMO control using ANCOVA. In addition, we calculated mean scores capturing participant views of the impact and value of deliberation. Participating in deliberation increased participants' knowledge of evidence and comparative effectiveness research and shifted participants' attitudes regarding the role of evidence in decision-making. When comparing each deliberative method to the RMO control group, all four deliberative methods resulted in statistically significant change on at least one knowledge or attitude measure. These findings were underscored by self-reports that the experience affected participants' opinions. Public deliberation offers unique potential for those seeking informed input on complex, values-laden topics affecting broad public constituencies.