2000 年至 2021 年加拿大卫生政策中由政府发起的公众参与趋势。

Q2 Medicine Healthcare Policy Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.12927/hcpol.2024.27416
Roma Dhamanaskar, Katherine Boothe, Joanna Massie, Jeonghwa You, Danielle Just, Grace Kuang, Julia Abelson
{"title":"2000 年至 2021 年加拿大卫生政策中由政府发起的公众参与趋势。","authors":"Roma Dhamanaskar, Katherine Boothe, Joanna Massie, Jeonghwa You, Danielle Just, Grace Kuang, Julia Abelson","doi":"10.12927/hcpol.2024.27416","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Canada has a rich history of public engagement in health policy; however, shifts in engagement practices over time have not been critically examined.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We searched for cases of government-initiated public engagement in Canadian health policy from 2000 to 2021 at the federal, provincial (Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia) and pan-Canadian levels. Government databases, portals and platforms for engagement were searched, followed by academic and grey literature using relevant search terms. A coding scheme was iteratively developed to categorize cases by target population, recruitment method and type of engagement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 132 cases of government-initiated public engagement. We found a predominance of feedback and consultation engagement types and self-selection recruitment, especially at the federal level from 2016 onward. Engagements that targeted multiple populations (patients, public and other stakeholders) were favoured overall and over time. Just over 10% of cases in our survey mentioned efforts to engage with equity-deserving groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, our results identify a heavy reliance over time on more passive, indirect engagement approaches, which limit opportunities for collaborative problem solving and fail to include equity-deserving populations. Those overseeing the design and implementation of government-initiated public engagement will draw valuable lessons from this review to inform the design of engagement initatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":39389,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare Policy","volume":"20 SP","pages":"17-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523115/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Trends in Government-Initiated Public Engagement in Canadian Health Policy From 2000 to 2021.\",\"authors\":\"Roma Dhamanaskar, Katherine Boothe, Joanna Massie, Jeonghwa You, Danielle Just, Grace Kuang, Julia Abelson\",\"doi\":\"10.12927/hcpol.2024.27416\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Canada has a rich history of public engagement in health policy; however, shifts in engagement practices over time have not been critically examined.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We searched for cases of government-initiated public engagement in Canadian health policy from 2000 to 2021 at the federal, provincial (Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia) and pan-Canadian levels. Government databases, portals and platforms for engagement were searched, followed by academic and grey literature using relevant search terms. A coding scheme was iteratively developed to categorize cases by target population, recruitment method and type of engagement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 132 cases of government-initiated public engagement. We found a predominance of feedback and consultation engagement types and self-selection recruitment, especially at the federal level from 2016 onward. Engagements that targeted multiple populations (patients, public and other stakeholders) were favoured overall and over time. Just over 10% of cases in our survey mentioned efforts to engage with equity-deserving groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, our results identify a heavy reliance over time on more passive, indirect engagement approaches, which limit opportunities for collaborative problem solving and fail to include equity-deserving populations. Those overseeing the design and implementation of government-initiated public engagement will draw valuable lessons from this review to inform the design of engagement initatives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39389,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare Policy\",\"volume\":\"20 SP\",\"pages\":\"17-35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11523115/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2024.27416\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpol.2024.27416","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:加拿大在公众参与卫生政策方面有着悠久的历史;然而,随着时间的推移,参与实践的变化尚未得到批判性的研究:我们搜索了 2000 年至 2021 年加拿大联邦、省(安大略省、不列颠哥伦比亚省、新斯科舍省)和泛加拿大各级政府发起的公众参与加拿大卫生政策的案例。我们搜索了政府数据库、门户网站和参与平台,然后使用相关搜索词搜索了学术文献和灰色文献。我们反复制定了一个编码方案,按照目标人群、招募方法和参与类型对案例进行分类:我们发现了 132 个由政府发起的公众参与案例。我们发现,反馈和咨询参与类型以及自主选择的招募方式占主导地位,尤其是在 2016 年以后的联邦层面。总体而言,针对多种人群(患者、公众和其他利益相关者)的公众参与在不同时期都受到了青睐。在我们的调查中,仅有超过10%的案例提到了与需要公平的群体接触的努力:总体而言,我们的调查结果表明,随着时间的推移,人们越来越依赖于被动、间接的参与方式,这种方式限制了合作解决问题的机会,也未能将需要公平的群体纳入其中。那些监督政府发起的公众参与活动的设计和实施的人将会从本次回顾中汲取宝贵的经验,为参与活动的设计提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Trends in Government-Initiated Public Engagement in Canadian Health Policy From 2000 to 2021.

Introduction: Canada has a rich history of public engagement in health policy; however, shifts in engagement practices over time have not been critically examined.

Methodology: We searched for cases of government-initiated public engagement in Canadian health policy from 2000 to 2021 at the federal, provincial (Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia) and pan-Canadian levels. Government databases, portals and platforms for engagement were searched, followed by academic and grey literature using relevant search terms. A coding scheme was iteratively developed to categorize cases by target population, recruitment method and type of engagement.

Results: We identified 132 cases of government-initiated public engagement. We found a predominance of feedback and consultation engagement types and self-selection recruitment, especially at the federal level from 2016 onward. Engagements that targeted multiple populations (patients, public and other stakeholders) were favoured overall and over time. Just over 10% of cases in our survey mentioned efforts to engage with equity-deserving groups.

Conclusion: Overall, our results identify a heavy reliance over time on more passive, indirect engagement approaches, which limit opportunities for collaborative problem solving and fail to include equity-deserving populations. Those overseeing the design and implementation of government-initiated public engagement will draw valuable lessons from this review to inform the design of engagement initatives.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Healthcare Policy
Healthcare Policy Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
"Whatever Job I'm In, I'm Going to Find a Way to Make a Difference" - A Black Community Leader's Perspective on Engagement and Advocacy. "You Can't Let Go" - A Black Community Leader's Perspective on Engagement and Advocacy. Black Community Health Advocates in Ontario: A Look at Health Policy Engagement From the Ground Up. Engaging Canadians in Health Policy Is no Trivial Matter. Ethical and Transformative Scholarly Public Engagement: Pitfalls, Possibilities and Promises.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1