Search

Context: Engaging underrepresented communities in health research priority setting could make the scientific agenda more equitable and more responsive to their needs. Objective: Evaluate democratic deliberations engaging minority and underserved communities in setting health research priorities. Methods: Participants from underrepresented communities throughout Michigan (47 groups, n = 519) engaged in structured deliberations about health research priorities in professionally facilitated groups. We evaluated some aspects of the structure, process, and outcomes of deliberations, including representation, equality of participation, participants' views of deliberations, and the impact of group deliberations on individual participants' knowledge, attitudes, and points of view. Follow‐up interviews elicited richer descriptions of these and also explored later effects on deliberators. Results: Deliberators (age 18‐88 years) overrepresented minority groups. Participation in discussions was well distributed. Deliberators improved their knowledge about disparities, but not about health research. Participants, on average, supported using their group's decision to inform decision makers and would trust a process like this to inform funding decisions. Views of deliberations were the strongest predictor of these outcomes. Follow‐up interviews revealed deliberators were particularly struck by their experience hearing and understanding other points of view, sometimes surprised at the group's ability to reach agreement, and occasionally activated to volunteer or advocate. Conclusions: Deliberations using a structured group exercise to engage minority and underserved community members in setting health research priorities met some important criteria for a fair, credible process that could inform policy. Deliberations appeared to change some opinions, improved some knowledge, and were judged by participants worth using to inform policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To demonstrate that employees can gain understanding of the financial constraints involved in designing health insurance benefits. Background While employees who receive their health insurance through the workplace have much at stake as the cost of health insurance rises, they are not necessarily prepared to constructively participate in prioritizing their health insurance benefits in order to limit cost. Design Structured group exercises. Setting and participants Employees of 41 public and private organizations in Northern California. Intervention Administration of the CHAT (Choosing Healthplans All Together) exercise in which participants engage in deliberation to design health insurance benefits under financial constraints. Main outcome measures Change in priorities and attitudes about the need to exercise insurance cost constraints. Results Participants ( N = 744) became significantly more cognizant of the need to limit insurance benefits for the sake of affordability and capable of prioritizing benefit options. Those agreeing that it is reasonable to limit health insurance coverage given the cost increased from 47% to 72%. Conclusion It is both possible and valuable to involve employees in priority setting regarding health insurance benefits through the use of structured decision tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Achieving universal health coverage (UHC) in the context of limited resources will require prioritising the most vulnerable and ensuring health policies and services are responsive to their needs. One way of addressing this is through the engagement of marginalised voices in the priority setting process. Public engagement approaches that enable group level deliberation as well as individual level preference capturing might be valuable in this regard, but there are limited examples of their practical application, and gaps in understanding their outcomes, especially with rural populations. Objective: To address this gap, we implemented a modified priority setting tool (Choosing All Together—CHAT) that enables individuals and groups to make trade‐offs to demonstrate the type of health services packages that may be acceptable to a rural population. The paper presents the findings from the individual choices as compared to the group choices, as well as the differences among the individual choices using this tool. Methods: Participants worked in groups and as individuals to allocate stickers representing the available budget to different health topics and interventions using the CHAT tool. The allocations were recorded at each stage of the study. We calculated the median and interquartile range across study participants for the topic totals. To examine differences in individual choices, we performed Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Results: The results show that individual interests were mostly aligned with societal ones, and there were no statistically significant differences between the individual and group choices. However, there were some statistically significant differences between individual priorities based on demographic characteristics like age. Discussion: The study demonstrates that giving individuals greater control and agency in designing health services packages can increase their participation in the priority setting process, align individual and community priorities, and potentially enhance the legitimacy and acceptability of priority setting. Methods that enable group level deliberation and individual level priority setting may be necessary to reconcile plurality. The paper also highlights the importance of capturing the details of public engagement processes and transparently reporting on these details to ensure valuable outcomes. Public Contribution: The facilitator of the CHAT groups was a member from the community and underwent training from the research team. The fieldworkers were also from the community and were trained and paid to capture the data. The participants were all members of the rural community‐ the study represents their priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To learn how minority and underserved communities would set priorities for patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR).Data Sources: Sixteen groups (n = 183) from minority and underserved communities in two states deliberated about PCOR priorities using the simulation exercise CHoosing All Together (CHAT). Most participants were minority, one-third reported income <$10,000, and one-fourth reported fair/poor health.Design: Academic-community partnerships adapted CHAT for PCOR priority setting using existing research agendas and interviews with community leaders, clinicians, and key informants.Data Collection: Tablet-based CHAT collected demographic information, individual priorities before and after group deliberation, and groups' priorities.Principal Findings: Individuals and groups prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Access, Special Needs, and (by total resources spent) Compare Approaches. Those with less than a high school education were less likely to prioritize New Approaches, Patient-Doctor, Quality of Life, and Families/Caregivers. Blacks were less likely to prioritize research on Causes of Disease, New Approaches, and Compare Approaches than whites. Compare Approaches, Special Needs, Access, and Families/Caregivers were significantly more likely to be selected by individuals after compared to before deliberation.Conclusions: Members of underserved communities, in informed deliberations, prioritized research on Quality of Life, Patient-Doctor, Special Needs, Access, and Compare Approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]