TY - JOUR
T1 - CJCheck Stage 1
T2 - 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, Christopher
AU - Street, Jacqueline
AU - Carter, Stacy
AU - Rychetnik, Lucie
AU - Whitty, Jennifer
AU - Wilson, Andrew
AU - Ward, Paul
AU - Glaszlou, Paul
N1 - This 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.
PY - 2017/8
Y1 - 2017/8
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.
KW - checklist
KW - citizen jury
KW - CJCheck
KW - community jury
KW - reporting standards
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/633033
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/1023197
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/1083079
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/1032963
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/NHMRC/565501
U2 - 10.1111/hex.12493
DO - 10.1111/hex.12493
M3 - Article
SN - 1369-6513
VL - 20
SP - 626
EP - 637
JO - Health Expectations
JF - Health Expectations
IS - 4
ER -