A mixed-methods comparison of participatory and deliberative citizen engagement methods

Despite increasing recognition of the importance of citizen engagement in health policy, there is limited evidence for comparing and evaluating engagement methods, especially through a mixed-methods approach. The aim of this research was to compare and evaluate two citizen engagement approaches by analysing variations in participants' responses and assessing participant surveys to understand perceived contributions to policy development.

This research used a concurrent mixed-methods research design to evaluate two distinct citizen engagement approaches in health policy development. The design combined qualitative (citizen panels and interviews) and quantitative (surveys) data collection and analysis to examine the nature of input and participants' perceived outcomes across the two methods.

Both engagement methods revealed overlapping themes, though the nature of contributions differed. Citizen panels produced broader, system-level suggestions and collective problem-solving. By contrast, individual interviews offered deeper, personal accounts, enriching the findings with emotionally grounded perspectives. This study demonstrates that both citizen panels and individual interviews offer valuable yet distinct contributions to health policy development. Panels generate system-level recommendations and collective solutions, while interviews provide nuanced, personal insights into lived experiences.

Using both citizen panels and an in-depth interview engagement approach in a mixed-methods design broadens and deepens the evidence base, highlighting the need to align method choice with specific policy and research goals.