Citizens' juries can bring public voices on overdiagnosis into policy making

Chris Degeling*, Rae Thomas, Lucie Rychetnik

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
125 Downloads (Pure)

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
Original languageEnglish
Article numberl351
JournalBMJ (Online)
Volume364
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jan 2019

    Fingerprint

Cite this