Testing a deliberative democracy method with citizens of African ancestry to weigh pros and cons of targeted screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.
Testing a deliberative democracy method with citizens of African ancestry to weigh pros and cons of targeted screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpubh.2022.984926
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Gornick, Michele C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Guan, Yue;Pathak, Sarita;Ballard, Denise;Veluswamy, J. K.;McCullough, Lauren E.;McBride, Colleen M.;Gornick, Michele C.
关键词：
民主审议(DD)是一种促进研究人员和社区之间共同学习的战略，可用于在与基因组翻译相关的卫生政策方面获得知情的公众意见。我们评估了DD的质量，以获得关于佐治亚州遗传性乳腺癌和卵巢癌(HBOC)筛查目标非洲裔社区(AAN)的知情社区观点。我们在2021年3月通过ZOOM录制了一个为期2.5天的会议，以检查基于三个原则的审议质量指标：(1)包容性(基于参与者的人口统计数据、癌症病史和公民参与的不同观点)，(2)对事实信息的考虑(平衡和公正的专家证词，参与者感知的帮助)，以及(3)审议(发言机会，对问题的社会视角，对想法的合理辩护，以及参与者的满意度)。我们招募了24名参与者，他们反映了居住在格鲁吉亚的AAN公民的观点和生活经历的多样性。我们为创造平衡的事实信息而开展的专家证词发展进程得到了专家的反馈支持。审议进程评价显示，虽然参与情况各不相同(平均发言次数为24次，范围为3至62次)，但所有与会者都作出了贡献。与会者能够应用专家信息并从社会角度考虑在佐治亚州以AAN患者为目标进行HBOC筛查的利弊。采用协商民主办法的严格的公众参与进程可以成功地让公民参与到各种不同和消息灵通的意见中来，在相对较短的时间内做到这一点，并在高质量讨论的基础上产生观点。
Democratic deliberation (DD), a strategy to foster co-learning among researchers and communities, could be applied to gain informed public input on health policies relating to genomic translation. We evaluated the quality of DD for gaining informed community perspectives regarding targeting communities of African Ancestry (AAn) for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) screening in Georgia. We audiotaped a 2.5 day conference conducted via zoom in March 2021 to examine indicators of deliberation quality based on three principles: (1) inclusivity (diverse viewpoints based on participants' demographics, cancer history, and civic engagement), (2) consideration of factual information (balanced and unbiased expert testimonies, participant perceived helpfulness), and (3) deliberation (speaking opportunities, adoption of a societal perspective on the issue, reasoned justification of ideas, and participant satisfaction). We recruited 24 participants who reflected the diversity of views and life experiences of citizens of AAn living in Georgia. The expert testimony development process we undertook for creating balanced factual information was endorsed by experts' feedback. Deliberation process evaluation showed that while participation varied (average number of statements = 24, range: 3–62), all participants contributed. Participants were able to apply expert information and take a societal perspective to deliberate on the pros and cons of targeting individuals of AAn for HBOC screening in Georgia. The rigorous process of public engagement using deliberative democracy approach can successfully engage a citizenry with diverse and well-informed views, do so in a relatively short time frame and yield perspectives based on high quality discussion.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
4
作者：
Bonevski B;Randell M;Paul C;Chapman K;Twyman L;Bryant J;Brozek I;Hughes C
通讯作者：
Hughes C
影响因子：
5.2
作者：
Allford, Anna;Qureshi, Nadeem;Kai, Joe
通讯作者：
Kai, Joe
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Bellcross, Cecelia A.;Kolor, Katherine;Khoury, Muin J.
通讯作者：
Khoury, Muin J.
影响因子：
8.8
作者：
Butrick, Morgan;Kelly, Scott;Schwartz, Marc D.
通讯作者：
Schwartz, Marc D.
DOI：
10.1111/j.1754-7121.2002.tb01074.x
发表时间：
2002-03-01
影响因子：
1
作者：
Abelson, J;Forest, PG;Gauvin, FP
通讯作者：
Gauvin, FP