Search

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) remains as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans - ten provincial, three territorial and one federal. The healthcare research funding environment has been largely positive for SDM because there was funding for knowledge translation research which also encompassed SDM. The funding climate currently places new emphasis on patient involvement in research and on patient empowerment in healthcare. SDM fields have expanded from primary care to elder care, paediatrics, emergency and critical care medicine, cardiology, nutrition, occupational therapy and workplace rehabilitation. Also, SDM has reached out to embrace other health-related decisions including about home care and social care and has been adapted to Aboriginal decision making needs. Canadian researchers have developed new interprofessional SDM models that are being used worldwide. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but there are provincial initiatives in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan. Decision aids are routinely used in some areas, for example for prostate cancer in Saskatchewan, and many others are available for online consultation. The Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario maintains an international inventory of decision aids appraised with the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The Canada Research Chair in SDM and Knowledge Translation in Quebec City maintains a website of SDM training programs available worldwide. These initiatives are positive, but the future of SDM in Canada depends on whether health policies, health professionals and the public culture fully embrace it., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

Canada's approach to shared decision making (SDM) is as disparate as its healthcare system; a conglomerate of 14 public plans at various administrative levels. SDM initiatives are taking place in different pockets of the country and are in different stages of development. The most advanced provincial initiative is occurring in Saskatchewan, where in 2010 the provincial government prepare to introduce patient decision aids into certain surgical specialties. With regard to decision support tools for patients, perhaps the most active entity is the Patient Decision Aids Research Group in Ottawa, Ontario. This group maintains a public inventory of decision aids ranked according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and has developed the generic Ottawa Personal Decision Guide, as well as a toolkit for integrating decision aids in clinical practice. All of these tools are publicly available free of charge. Professional interest in SDM in Canada is not yet widespread, but Canada's principal health research funding agency is sponsoring several important SDM projects. Researchers from institutions across the country are promoting SDM through continuing professional development programs and other interventions in fields as varied as primary care, dietary medicine and workplace rehabilitation. Still, the future of SDM in Canada remains uncertain. Canada's provincially based structure obliges promoters to work with each province separately, and the recent growth of private healthcare risks dissipating efforts to implement SDM., (2011. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

To resolve tensions among competing sources of evidence and public expectations, health-care managers and policy makers are turning more than ever to involve the public in a wide range of decisions. Yet efforts to use research evidence to inform public involvement decisions are hampered by an absence of rigorous public participation evaluation research. In particular, greater rigour in exploring the roles played by different contextual variables--such as characteristics of the issue of interest, the culture of the sponsoring organization and attributes of the decision being made--is needed. Using a comparative quasi-experimental design, we assessed the performance of a generic public participation method implemented in 5 Canadian regionalized health settings between 2001 and 2004. Participant and decision-maker perspectives were assessed and, through direct observation, the roles exerted by contextual variables over the public involvement processes were documented and analysed. Our findings demonstrate that a generic public participation method can be implemented in a variety of contexts and with considerable success. Context exerts fostering and inhibiting influences that contribute to more (or less) successful implementation. Public participation practitioners are encouraged to pay careful attention to the types of issues and decisions for which they are seeking public input. Sufficient organizational resources and commitment to the goals of the public participation process are also required. Attention to these contextual attributes and their influence on the design and outcomes of public participation processes is as important as choosing the "right" public participation mechanism.

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.

How to involve the public in setting health and health care priorities is a constant challenge for health system decisions. Policy maker interest in involving the public in increasingly complex and value-laden priority setting processes has led to the use of deliberative public involvement methods designed to promote discussion and debate among participants with the objective of obtaining more informed and consensual views. These methods have not been evaluated rigorously using controlled designs with pre- and post-test measurements. We examined, using a controlled design, the effects of introducing different opportunities for deliberation into a process for obtaining public input into a community health goals priority setting process. Our findings indicate that deliberation does make a difference to participant views. As more deliberation is introduced, participant views may be more amenable to change. Deliberation also offers the potential for views to become more rather than less entrenched. While we are beginning to understand the difference deliberation makes to participant views, we are still at an early stage in understanding the process through which these differences come about and what difference deliberation makes to broader outcomes such as civic competence, civic engagement and health policy decisions.

A common thread weaving through the current public participation debate is the need for new approaches that emphasize two-way interaction between decision makers and the public as well as deliberation among participants. Increasingly complex decision making processes require a more informed citizenry that has weighed the evidence on the issue, discussed and debated potential decision options and arrived at a mutually agreed upon decision or at least one by which all parties can abide. We explore the recent fascination with deliberative methods for public involvement first by examining their origins within democratic theory, and then by focusing on the experiences with deliberative methods within the health sector. In doing so, we answer the following questions "What are deliberative methods and why have they become so popular? What are their potential contributions to the health sector?" We use this critical review of the literature as the basis for developing general principles that can be used to guide the design and evaluation of public involvement processes for the health-care sector in particular.