Author/Authors :
Whitty ، Jennifer A. نويسنده School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia , , Burton، Paul نويسنده Urban Research Program, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Gold Coast campus, Southport, Queensland, Australia , , Kendall، Elizabeth A. نويسنده , , Ratcliffe، Julie نويسنده Flinders Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia , , Wilson، Andrew نويسنده Menzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia , , Littlejohns، Peter نويسنده Division of Health and Social Care Research, King’s College School of Medicine, London, UK , , Scuffham، Paul A. نويسنده Centre for Applied Health Economics, Population and Social Health Research Program, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Logan campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia ,
Abstract :
Despite progress towards greater public engagement, questions about the optimal approach to access public preferences remain unanswered. We review two increasingly popular methods for engaging the public in healthcare priority-setting and determining their preferences; the Citizens’ Jury (CJ) and Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE). We discuss the theoretical framework from which each method is derived, its application in healthcare, and critique the information it can provide for decision-makers. We conclude that combining deliberation of an informed public via CJs and quantification of preferences using DCE methods, whilst it remains to be tested as an approach to engaging the public in priority-setting, could potentially achieve much richer information than the application of either method in isolation.
