Towards Evidence of Rigour in Empirical Deliberative Democratic Methods: Development and Piloting of the C-JuRI...

Area of Science:

• Public Health Policy
• Health Services Research
• Political Science

Background:

• Deliberative democratic methods are increasingly used for public involvement in health policy.
• Existing evaluation methods often focus on specific aspects, lacking a holistic approach to process quality.
• There's a need for practical guidelines to assess the overall quality of deliberative democratic engagement.

Purpose of the Study:

• To develop and pilot a framework for evaluating the quality of Citizens' Juries.
• To base the framework on the OECD's Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes.
• To provide a tool for assessing and improving deliberative democratic processes in health policy.

Main Methods:

• Developed the Citizens' Jury Rigour and Improvement (C-JuRI) framework.
• Grounded framework criteria in deliberative democratic theory.
• Piloted the C-JuRI framework on the AI in Healthcare Jury.

Main Results:

• The C-JuRI framework effectively evaluated the AI in Healthcare Jury.
• Identified strengths and areas for improvement in the deliberative process.
• Post hoc framework adjustments potentially enhanced improvement identification.

Conclusions:

• The C-JuRI framework is a valuable tool for designing high-quality Citizens' Juries.
• It aids researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in assessing deliberative process quality and rigor.
• The framework supports the goal of high-quality public involvement in decision-making.