Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/123729
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015
Author: Thomas, R.
Sims, R.
Degeling, C.
Street, J.
Carter, S.
Rychetnik, L.
Whitty, J.
Wilson, A.
Ward, P.
Glasziou, P.
Citation: Health Expectations, 2017; 20(4):626-637
Publisher: Wiley
Issue Date: 2017
ISSN: 1369-6513
1369-7625
Statement of
Responsibility: 
Rae Thomas, Rebecca Sims, Chris Degeling, Jackie M. Street, Stacy M. Carter, Lucie Rychetnik, Jennifer A. Whitty, Andrew Wilson, Paul Ward, Paul Glasziou
Abstract: 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.
Keywords: checklist; citizen jury; CJCheck; community jury; reporting standards
Rights: © 2016 The Authors. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 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.
RMID: 0030055983
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12493
Grant ID: http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/633033
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1023197
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1083079
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1032963
http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/565501
Appears in Collections:Public Health publications

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
hdl_123729.pdfPublished version356.85 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.