Skip to main content
Article
CJCheck Stage 1: Development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015
Health Expectations: An international journal of public participation in health care and health policy
  • Rae Thomas, Bond University
  • Rebecca Sims, Bond University
  • Chris Degeling, University of Sydney
  • Jackie M Street, The University of Adelaide
  • Stacy M Carter, University of Sydney
  • Lucie Rychetnik, University of Sydney
  • Jennifer A Whitty, University of East Anglia
  • Andrew Wilson, University of Sydney
  • Paul Ward, Flinders University
  • Paul Glasziou, Bond University
Date of this Version
10-5-2016
Document Type
Journal Article
Grant Number
NHMRC Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP) Grant (#633033). Rebecca Sims was supported by a Bond University Vice Chancellor’s Research Grant Scheme
Publication Details

Published version

Thomas, R., Sims, R., Degeling, C., Street, J. M., Carter, S. M., Rychetnik, L., Whitty, J. A., Wilson, A., Ward, P., & Glasziou, P. (2016). CJCheck Stage 1: Development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015. Health Expectations. 20(4), 626-637.

Access the journal

© 2016 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Distribution License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
Disciplines
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.

Citation Information
Rae Thomas, Rebecca Sims, Chris Degeling, Jackie M Street, et al.. "CJCheck Stage 1: Development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015" Health Expectations: An international journal of public participation in health care and health policy Vol. 20 Iss. 4 (2016) p. 626 - 637 ISSN: 1369-7625
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/paul_glasziou/201/