↓ Skip to main content

Do consumer voices in health‐care citizens’ juries matter?

Overview of attention for article published in Health Expectations, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do consumer voices in health‐care citizens’ juries matter?
Published in
Health Expectations, September 2015
DOI 10.1111/hex.12397
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachael Krinks, Elizabeth Kendall, Jennifer A. Whitty, Paul A. Scuffham

Abstract

There is widespread agreement that the public should be engaged in health-care decision making. One method of engagement that is gaining prominence is the citizens' jury, which places citizens at the centre of the deliberative process. However, little is known about how the jury process works in a health-care context. There is even less clarity about how consumer perspectives are heard within citizens' juries and with what consequences. This paper focuses on what is known about the role of consumer voices within health-care citizens' juries, how these voices are heard by jurors and whether and in what ways the inclusion or exclusion of such voices may matter. Consumer voices are not always included in health-care citizens' juries. There is a dearth of research on the conditions under which consumer voices emerge (or not), from which sources and why. As a result, little is known about what stories are voiced or silenced, and how such stories are heard by jurors, with what consequences for jurors, deliberation, decision-makers, policy and practice. The potential role of consumer voices in influencing deliberations and recommendations of citizens' juries requires greater attention. Much needed knowledge about the nuances of deliberative processes will contribute to an assessment of the usefulness of citizens' juries as a public engagement mechanism.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 49 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Professor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 22%
Social Sciences 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 17 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2016.
All research outputs
#7,402,052
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Health Expectations
#890
of 1,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,132
of 279,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Expectations
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.