Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThomas, Rae
dc.contributor.authorSims, Rebecca
dc.contributor.authorDegeling, Chris
dc.contributor.authorStreet, Jackie M
dc.contributor.authorCarter, Stacy M
dc.contributor.authorRychetnik, Lucie
dc.contributor.authorWhitty, Jennifer A
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorWard, Paul Russell
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-03T23:36:25Z
dc.date.available2017-08-03T23:36:25Z
dc.date.issued2016-10-05
dc.identifier.citationThomas, R., Sims, R., Degeling, C., Street, J. M., Carter, S. M., Rychetnik, L., Whitty, J. A., Wilson, A., Ward, P. and Glasziou, P. (2017), CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015. Health Expect, 20: 626–637. doi:10.1111/hex.12493en
dc.identifier.issn1369-7625
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2328/37384
dc.descriptionThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en
dc.description.abstractBackground 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.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWileyen
dc.relationhttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/633033en
dc.rights© 2016 The Authorsen
dc.subjectCommunity/citizen's juries (CJs)en
dc.subjectcitizens' juryen
dc.subjectCJChecken
dc.subjectCommunity participationen
dc.titleCJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.relation.grantnumberNHMRC/633033
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12493en
dc.rights.holderThe Authorsen
dc.rights.licenseCC-BY
local.contributor.authorOrcidLookupWard, Paul Russell: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5559-9714en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record