How a deliberative approach includes women in the decisions of screening mammography: a citizens' jury feasibility study in Andalusia, Spain

Public Engagement in Health Policy-Making for Older Adults: A Systematic Search and Scoping Review

INTRODUCTION

As the world's population ages, there has been increasing attention to developing health policies to support older adults. Engaging older adults in policy-making is one way to ensure that policy decisions align with their needs and priorities. However, ageist stereotypes often underestimate older adults' ability to participate in such initiatives. This scoping review aims to describe the characteristics and impacts of public engagement initiatives designed to help inform health policy-making for older adults.

METHODS

A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature (English only) describing public engagement initiatives in health policy-making for older adults was conducted using six electronic databases, Google and the Participedia website. No geographical, methodological or time restrictions were applied to the search. Eligibility criteria were purposefully broad to capture a wide array of relevant engagement initiatives. The outcomes of interest included participants, engagement methods and reported impacts.

RESULTS

This review included 38 papers. The majority of public engagement initiatives were funded or initiated by governments or government agencies as a formal activity to address policy issues, compared to initiatives without a clear link to a specific policy-making process (e.g., research projects). While most initiatives engaged older adults as target participants, there was limited reporting on efforts to achieve participant diversity. Consultation-type engagement activities were most prevalent, compared to deliberative and collaborative approaches. Impacts of public engagement were frequently reported without formal evaluations. Notably, a few articles reported negative impacts of such initiatives.

CONCLUSION

This review describes how public engagement practices have been conducted to help inform health policy-making for older adults and the documented impacts. The findings can assist policymakers, government staff, researchers and seniors' advocates in supporting the design and execution of public engagement initiatives in this policy sector.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Older adult partners from the McMaster University Collaborative for Health and Aging provided strategic advice throughout the key phases of this review, including developing a review protocol, data charting and synthesis and interpreting and presenting the review findings. This collaborative partnership was an essential aspect of this review, enhancing its relevance and meaningfulness for older adults.

Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

BACKGROUND

Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.

METHODS

We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.

FINDINGS

Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

IMPAACT: IMproving the PArticipAtion of older people in policy decision-making on common health CondiTions - a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Rapid population ageing is a demographic trend being experienced and documented worldwide. While increased health screening and assessment may help mitigate the burden of illness in older people, issues such as misdiagnosis may affect access to interventions. This study aims to elicit the values and preferences of evidence-informed older people living in the community on early screening for common health conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dementia and frailty). The study will proceed in three Phases: (1) generating recommendations of older people through a series of Citizens' Juries; (2) obtaining feedback from a diverse range of stakeholder groups on the jury findings; and (3) co-designing a set of Knowledge Translation resources to facilitate implementation into research, policy and practice. Conditions were chosen to reflect common health conditions characterised by increasing prevalence with age, but which have been underexamined through a Citizens' Jury methodology.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be conducted in three Phases-(1) Citizens' Juries, (2) Policy Roundtables and (3) Production of Knowledge Translation resources. First, older people aged 50+ (n=80), including those from traditionally hard-to-reach and diverse groups, will be purposively recruited to four Citizen Juries. Second, representatives from a range of key stakeholder groups, including consumers and carers, health and aged care policymakers, general practitioners, practice nurses, geriatricians, allied health practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, private health insurers and community and aged care providers (n=40) will be purposively recruited for two Policy Roundtables. Finally, two researchers and six purposively recruited consumers will co-design Knowledge Translation resources. Thematic analysis will be performed on documentation and transcripts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained through the Torrens University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants will give written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through development of a policy brief and lay summary, peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and seminars.

Using a Deliberative Poll on breast cancer screening to assess and improve the decision quality of laypeople

Balancing the benefits and harms of mammography screening is difficult and involves a value judgement. Screening is both a medical and a social intervention, therefore public opinion could be considered when deciding if mammography screening programmes should be implemented and continued. Opinion polls have revealed high levels of public enthusiasm for cancer screening, however, the public tends to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. In the search for better public decision on mammography screening, this study investigated the quality of public opinion arising from a Deliberative Poll. In a Deliberative Poll a representative group of people is brought together to deliberate with each other and with experts based on specific information. Before, during and after the process, the participants’ opinions are assessed. In our Deliberative Poll a representative sample of the Danish population aged between 18 and 70 participated. They studied an online video and took part in five hours of intense online deliberation. We used survey data at four timepoints during the study, from recruitment to one month after the poll, to estimate the quality of decisions by the following outcomes: 1) Knowledge; 2) Ability to form opinions; 3) Opinion stability, and 4) Opinion consistency. The proportion of participants with a high level of knowledge increased from 1% at recruitment to 56% after receiving video information. More people formed an opinion regarding the effectiveness of the screening programme (12%), the economy of the programme (27%), and the ethical dilemmas of screening (10%) due to the process of information and deliberation. For 11 out of 14 opinion items, the within-item correlations between the first two inquiry time points were smaller than the correlations between later timepoints. This indicates increased opinion stability. The correlations between three pairs of opinion items deemed theoretically related a priori all increased, indicating increased opinion consistency. Overall, the combined process of online information and deliberation increased opinion quality about mammography screening by increasing knowledge and the ability to form stable and consistent opinions.

Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation

PURPOSE

We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening.

METHODS

A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views.

RESULTS

Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17).

LIMITATIONS

Single location and medical decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.

An Australian community jury to consider case-finding for dementia: Differences between informed community preferences and general practice guidelines

Background

Case‐finding for dementia is practised by general practitioners (GPs) in Australia but without an awareness of community preferences. We explored the values and preferences of informed community members around case‐finding for dementia in Australian general practice.

Design, setting and participants

A before and after, mixed‐methods study in Gold Coast, Australia, with ten community members aged 50‐70.

Intervention

A 2‐day citizen/community jury. Participants were informed by experts about dementia, the potential harms and benefits of case‐finding, and ethical considerations.

Primary and secondary outcomes

We asked participants, “Should the health system encourage GPs to practice ‘case‐finding’ of dementia in people older than 50?” Case‐finding was defined as a GP initiating testing for dementia when the patient is unaware of symptoms. We also assessed changes in participant comprehension/knowledge, attitudes towards dementia and participants’ own intentions to undergo case‐finding for dementia if it were suggested.

Results

Participants voted unanimously against case‐finding for dementia, citing a lack of effective treatments, potential for harm to patients and potential financial incentives. However, they recognized that case‐finding was currently practised by Australian GPs and recommended specific changes to the guidelines. Participants increased their comprehension/knowledge of dementia, their attitude towards case‐finding became less positive, and their intentions to be tested themselves decreased.

Conclusion

Once informed, community jury participants did not agree case‐finding for dementia should be conducted by GPs. Yet their personal intentions to accept case‐finding varied. If case‐finding for dementia is recommended in the guidelines, then shared decision making is essential.

[Ethics in health technology assessment. Review]

INTRODUCTION

Bioethics and the health technologies assessment emerged to help make decisions. The objective of the work was to know, with respect to the health technologies assessment, the scientific production on its ethical issues, the degree of incorporation of these in practice, the inclusion of the values in the deliberative processes and the most relevant approaches to ethical analysis.

METHODOLOGY

A narrative review was made, based on a systematic search of literature in both natural and hierarchical language, using the terms technology assessment biomedical, ethics and deliberation (and its related terms). All types of papers published between May 2007 and April 2017 in Spanish, French, English or Italian that included both ethical aspects and health technology assessment were included. The PUBMED, OVID-Medline, Scopus databases and secondary searches were explored from the identified works. The information was extracted by a single researcher and managed with Mendeley and EPIINFO 7.2.

RESULTS

A total of 141 papers were identified, including 85 after revision by title and summary, with the following characteristics: 29 reviews (5 systematic), 16 frameworks, 18 methodological works and 29 with description of experiences. Multiple frameworks, approaches and methods in ethical analysis were identified.

CONCLUSION

The health technologies assessment has an approach excessively mechanistic, and can be improved by incorporating the values of the stakeholder, through deliberative processes. The methods of ethical analysis that seem most suitable are the axiological ones and those developed specifically for the health technologies assessment.