CJCheck Stage 1: Development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015

Rae Thomas, Rebecca Sims, Chris Degeling, Jackie M. Street, Stacy M. Carter, Lucie Rychetnik, Jennifer A. Whitty, Andrew Wilson, Paul Ward, Paul Glasziou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)
45 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)626-637
Number of pages12
JournalHealth Expectations
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2017

Fingerprint

Checklist
Policy Making
Health Policy
Health
Research Personnel
Publications

Cite this

Thomas, Rae ; Sims, Rebecca ; Degeling, Chris ; Street, Jackie M. ; Carter, Stacy M. ; Rychetnik, Lucie ; Whitty, Jennifer A. ; Wilson, Andrew ; Ward, Paul ; Glasziou, Paul. / CJCheck Stage 1: Development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015. In: Health Expectations. 2017 ; Vol. 20, No. 4. pp. 626-637.
@article{ecc9a50a73be401ba78de7473d57e746,
title = "CJCheck Stage 1: Development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015",
abstract = "Background: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92{\%}, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5{\%}, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66{\%} of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29{\%}, 11/38). Conclusions: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.",
author = "Rae Thomas and Rebecca Sims and Chris Degeling and Street, {Jackie M.} and Carter, {Stacy M.} and Lucie Rychetnik and Whitty, {Jennifer A.} and Andrew Wilson and Paul Ward and Paul Glasziou",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/hex.12493",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "626--637",
journal = "Health Expectations",
issn = "1369-6513",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

CJCheck Stage 1: Development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015. / Thomas, Rae; Sims, Rebecca; Degeling, Chris; Street, Jackie M.; Carter, Stacy M.; Rychetnik, Lucie; Whitty, Jennifer A.; Wilson, Andrew; Ward, Paul; Glasziou, Paul.

In: Health Expectations, Vol. 20, No. 4, 01.08.2017, p. 626-637.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - CJCheck Stage 1: Development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015

AU - Thomas, Rae

AU - Sims, Rebecca

AU - Degeling, Chris

AU - Street, Jackie M.

AU - Carter, Stacy M.

AU - Rychetnik, Lucie

AU - Whitty, Jennifer A.

AU - Wilson, Andrew

AU - Ward, Paul

AU - Glasziou, Paul

PY - 2017/8/1

Y1 - 2017/8/1

N2 - Background: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

AB - Background: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizen's juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design: Using the literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38), while least reported was the availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38); however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardized, systematic and transparent reporting.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995394537&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/hex.12493

DO - 10.1111/hex.12493

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 626

EP - 637

JO - Health Expectations

JF - Health Expectations

SN - 1369-6513

IS - 4

ER -