Will it make a difference if I show up and share? A citizens' perspective on improving public involvement processes for health system decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health policy decision-makers are grappling with increasingly complex and ethically controversial decisions at a time when citizens are demanding more involvement in these decision processes. OBJECTIVES: To assess and revise a set of guiding principles for the design of public involvement processes generated from a synthesis of public participation design and evaluation frameworks that can be used to inform the design and evaluation of future public participation processes in the health sector. METHODS: Six focus groups held in five Canadian provinces comprising citizens with considerable experience of public participation processes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that citizen participants are highly critical of, and discerning about,their public participation experiences. Yet, they are optimistic and determined to contribute in meaningful ways to future public policy processes. They are clear about where improvements are needed and give top priority to what information is shared, and how, among participants and decision-makers. The views of experienced citizens mapped well onto most of the prior principles of public involvement with a few modifications. First, participants gave greater emphasis to the content and balance of information for the purposes of building trust and credibility between citizens and decision-makers. Second, participants viewed themselves, as well as decision-makers, as sources of information to be shared through the consultation process. Finally, participants stressed the importance of getting the information and communication principles right over addressing all other principles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".