Abstract
Key messages
- Overdiagnosis challenges the social contract that underpins healthcare, and community voices are often missing from the relevant policy discussions
- Citizens’ juries elicit the voices, values, and preferences of informed citizens who are presented with evidence based expert views
- Jurors deliberate the evidence among themselves before formulating their opinions and recommendations
- Citizens’ juries can elucidate public values that can then be used to inform policies and practices to manage the risks of overdiagnosis
- The findings can contribute to guideline development and proposed changes to disease thresholds
- The process of citizens’ juries align with the basic tenets of evidence based medicine and can broaden and improve the dialogue around medical uncertainty
- Overdiagnosis challenges the social contract that underpins healthcare, and community voices are often missing from the relevant policy discussions
- Citizens’ juries elicit the voices, values, and preferences of informed citizens who are presented with evidence based expert views
- Jurors deliberate the evidence among themselves before formulating their opinions and recommendations
- Citizens’ juries can elucidate public values that can then be used to inform policies and practices to manage the risks of overdiagnosis
- The findings can contribute to guideline development and proposed changes to disease thresholds
- The process of citizens’ juries align with the basic tenets of evidence based medicine and can broaden and improve the dialogue around medical uncertainty
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | l351 |
| Journal | BMJ (Online) |
| Volume | 364 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 30 Jan 2019 |