Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens’ juries
  1. Paul A Scuffham1,
  2. Julie Ratcliffe2,
  3. Elizabeth Kendall3,
  4. Paul Burton4,
  5. Andrew Wilson5,
  6. Kalipso Chalkidou6,
  7. Peter Littlejohns7,
  8. Jennifer A Whitty8
  1. 1Centre for Applied Health Economics, Population and Social Health Research Program, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2Flinders Health Economics Group, School of Medicine, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
  3. 3Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation, Population and Social Health Research Program, Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4Urban Research Program, Griffith School of Environment, Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia
  5. 5Menzies Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  6. 6National Institute for Health and Care Excellence—NICE International, London, UK
  7. 7Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College School of Medicine, London, UK
  8. 8School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Paul A Scuffham; p.scuffham{at}


Introduction The optimal approach to engage the public in healthcare decision-making is unclear. Approaches range from deliberative citizens’ juries to large population surveys using discrete choice experiments. This study promotes public engagement and quantifies preferences in two key areas of relevance to the industry partners to identify which approach is most informative for informing healthcare policy.

Methods and analysis The key areas identified are optimising appropriate use of emergency care and prioritising patients for bariatric surgery. Three citizens’ juries will be undertaken—two in Queensland to address each key issue and one in Adelaide to repeat the bariatric surgery deliberations with a different sample. Jurors will be given a choice experiment before the jury, immediately following the jury and at approximately 1 month following the jury. Control groups for each jury will be given the choice experiment at the same time points to test for convergence. Samples of healthcare decision-makers will be given the choice experiment as will two large samples of the population. Jury and control group participants will be recruited from the Queensland electoral roll and newspaper advertisements in Adelaide. Population samples will be recruited from a large research panel. Jury processes will be analysed qualitatively and choice experiments will be analysed using multinomial logit models and its more generalised forms. Comparisons between preferences across jurors predeliberation and postdeliberation, control participants, healthcare decision-makers and the general public will be undertaken for each key issue.

Ethics and dissemination The study is approved by Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (MED/10/12/HREC). Findings of the juries and the choice experiments will be reported at a workshop of stakeholders to be held in 2015, in reports and in peer reviewed journals.


This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.