CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015

Thomas, Rae, Sims, Rebecca, Degeling, Chris, Street, Jackie M., Carter, Stacy M., Rychetnik, Lucie, Whitty, Jennifer A. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5886-1933, Wilson, Andrew, Ward, Paul and Glasziou, Paul (2017) CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015. Health Expectations, 20 (4). 626–637. ISSN 1369-6513

[thumbnail of Published manuscript]
PDF (Published manuscript) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (375kB) | Preview


Background: Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development is increasing. Community/Citizen’s Juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer-reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection, and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs and develop an initial checklist, and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards. Design: Using literature and expertise from CJ researchers and policy-advisors, a list of important CJ reporting items was suggested and further refined. We then reviewed published CJs within the health literature and used the checklist to assess the comprehensiveness of reporting. Results: CJCheck was developed and examined reporting of CJ planning, juror information, procedures and scheduling. We screened 1711 studies and extracted data from 38. No studies fully reported the checklist items. The item most consistently reported was juror numbers (92%, 35/38) while least reported was availability of expert presentations (5%, 2/38). Recruitment strategies were described in 66% of studies (25/38) however, the frequency and timing of deliberations was inadequately described (29%, 11/38). Conclusions: Currently CJ publications in health and health policy literature are inadequately reported, hampering their use in policy-making. We propose broadening the CJCheck by creating a reporting standards template in collaboration with international CJ researchers, policy-advisors and consumer representatives to ensure standardised, systematic and transparent reporting.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © 2016 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Uncontrolled Keywords: community jury,citizen jury,checklist,reporting standards,cjcheck,sdg 3 - good health and well-being ,/dk/atira/pure/sustainabledevelopmentgoals/good_health_and_well_being
Faculty \ School: Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Pure Connector
Date Deposited: 24 Sep 2016 00:19
Last Modified: 21 Oct 2022 06:31
URI: https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/59990
DOI: 10.1111/hex.12493

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item