Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens’ juries

Jennifer A. Whitty; Paul Burton; Elizabeth Kendall; Julie Ratcliffe; Andrew Wilson; Peter Littlejohns; Paul A. Scuffham

doi:10.15171/ijhpm.2014.61

Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens’ juries

Jennifer A. Whitty, Paul Burton, Elizabeth Kendall, Julie Ratcliffe, Andrew Wilson, Peter Littlejohns, Paul A. Scuffham

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

29 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite progress towards greater public engagement, questions about the optimal approach to access public preferences remain unanswered. We review two increasingly popular methods for engaging the public in healthcare priority-setting and determining their preferences; the Citizens’ Jury (CJ) and Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). We discuss the theoretical framework from which each method is derived, its application in healthcare, and critique the information it can provide for decision-makers. We conclude that combining deliberation of an informed public via CJs and quantification of preferences using DCE methods, whilst it remains to be tested as an approach to engaging the public in priority-setting, could potentially achieve much richer information than the application of either method in isolation.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	57-62
Number of pages	6
Journal	International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume	3
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2014.61
Publication status	Published - Jul 2014

Keywords

Consumer Participation
Health Policy
Decision-Making
Public Preferences
Citizens’ Jury (CJ)
Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE)

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.15171/ijhpm.2014.61

Cite this

@article{d736b4aa9f3f4bbb91cce1b521c5b576,

title = "Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens{\textquoteright} juries",

abstract = "Despite progress towards greater public engagement, questions about the optimal approach to access public preferences remain unanswered. We review two increasingly popular methods for engaging the public in healthcare priority-setting and determining their preferences; the Citizens{\textquoteright} Jury (CJ) and Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). We discuss the theoretical framework from which each method is derived, its application in healthcare, and critique the information it can provide for decision-makers. We conclude that combining deliberation of an informed public via CJs and quantification of preferences using DCE methods, whilst it remains to be tested as an approach to engaging the public in priority-setting, could potentially achieve much richer information than the application of either method in isolation.",

keywords = "Consumer Participation, Health Policy, Decision-Making, Public Preferences, Citizens{\textquoteright} Jury (CJ), Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE)",

author = "Whitty, {Jennifer A.} and Paul Burton and Elizabeth Kendall and Julie Ratcliffe and Andrew Wilson and Peter Littlejohns and Scuffham, {Paul A.}",

year = "2014",

month = jul,

doi = "10.15171/ijhpm.2014.61",

language = "English",

volume = "3",

pages = "57--62",

journal = "International Journal of Health Policy and Management",

issn = "2322-5939",

publisher = "Kerman University of Medical Science",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Harnessing the potential to quantify public preferences for healthcare priorities through citizens’ juries

AU - Whitty, Jennifer A.

AU - Burton, Paul

AU - Kendall, Elizabeth

AU - Ratcliffe, Julie

AU - Wilson, Andrew

AU - Littlejohns, Peter

AU - Scuffham, Paul A.

PY - 2014/7

Y1 - 2014/7

N2 - Despite progress towards greater public engagement, questions about the optimal approach to access public preferences remain unanswered. We review two increasingly popular methods for engaging the public in healthcare priority-setting and determining their preferences; the Citizens’ Jury (CJ) and Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). We discuss the theoretical framework from which each method is derived, its application in healthcare, and critique the information it can provide for decision-makers. We conclude that combining deliberation of an informed public via CJs and quantification of preferences using DCE methods, whilst it remains to be tested as an approach to engaging the public in priority-setting, could potentially achieve much richer information than the application of either method in isolation.

AB - Despite progress towards greater public engagement, questions about the optimal approach to access public preferences remain unanswered. We review two increasingly popular methods for engaging the public in healthcare priority-setting and determining their preferences; the Citizens’ Jury (CJ) and Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). We discuss the theoretical framework from which each method is derived, its application in healthcare, and critique the information it can provide for decision-makers. We conclude that combining deliberation of an informed public via CJs and quantification of preferences using DCE methods, whilst it remains to be tested as an approach to engaging the public in priority-setting, could potentially achieve much richer information than the application of either method in isolation.

KW - Consumer Participation

KW - Health Policy

KW - Decision-Making

KW - Public Preferences

KW - Citizens’ Jury (CJ)

KW - Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE)

U2 - 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.61

DO - 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.61

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 57

EP - 62

JO - International Journal of Health Policy and Management

JF - International Journal of Health Policy and Management

SN - 2322-5939

IS - 2

ER -