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}
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.