Skip navigation
  • Home
  • Browse
    • Communities
      & Collections
    • Browse Items by:
    • Publication Date
    • Author
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Department
  • Sign on to:
    • My MacSphere
    • Receive email
      updates
    • Edit Profile


McMaster University Home Page
  1. MacSphere
  2. Open Access Dissertations and Theses Community
  3. Open Access Dissertations and Theses
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11375/11233
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorJulia Abelson, PhDen_US
dc.contributor.advisorMita Giacomini, PhDen_US
dc.contributor.advisorAndrea Frolic, PhDen_US
dc.contributor.authorSimeonov, Dorinaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-18T16:54:00Z-
dc.date.available2014-06-18T16:54:00Z-
dc.date.created2011-09-21en_US
dc.date.issued2011-10en_US
dc.identifier.otheropendissertations/6216en_US
dc.identifier.other7232en_US
dc.identifier.other2249799en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11375/11233-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The use of interactive public engagement methods to elicit public values is becoming routine practice in health system planning, policy and evaluation; however, little systematic attention has been given to the analysis of how these values are articulated. This process will be examined with the use of deliberative discourse methods in the context of health technologies. Approach: The deliberations of a 14-person Citizens’ Reference Panel on Health Technologies were audiotaped and transcribed. The panel provided input to the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee in developing its recommendations. Discussion transcripts were analyzed using Gee’s (2005) ‘building tasks’ framework with a focus on identities, relationships, and politics. In depth language-context analysis was then used to study ‘situated meanings’ of social and ethical citizen values. Both levels of discourse analysis were then used to elicit the meso-level dynamics within the citizen panel deliberations. Results: Panel members used the provided materials, personal experience and other sources of information to express their values toward the technologies under review. In the group, members used their occupational, personal and cultural identities and adopted in-group citizen panel roles that involved summarizing small group discussions, challenging other members, providing information, providing expertise, interpreting information and facilitating. These individual roles were similar across meetings and members began to form relationships with their fellow citizens and make connections between the values involved in similar technologies. Conclusion: Discourse analysis methods can be used to draw in-depth insights from public engagement deliberations which contribute important new knowledge to the field of public deliberation and health policy. Further use and refinement of deliberative discourse methods will allow public values to be better understood and more adequately portrayed in the health technology assessment process.en_US
dc.subjectpublic engagementen_US
dc.subjectdeliberative discourseen_US
dc.subjectdiscourse analysisen_US
dc.subjecthealth technology assessmenten_US
dc.subjectHealth Policyen_US
dc.subjectHealth Policyen_US
dc.titleTHE ARTICULATION OF PUBLIC VALUES IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT: THE USE OF DELIBERATIVE DISCOURSEen_US
dc.typethesisen_US
dc.contributor.departmentHealth Research Methodologyen_US
dc.description.degreeMaster of Science (MSc)en_US
Appears in Collections:Open Access Dissertations and Theses

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
fulltext.pdf
Open Access
743.78 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record Statistics


Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship     McMaster University Libraries
©2022 McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4L8 | 905-525-9140 | Contact Us | Terms of Use & Privacy Policy | Feedback

Report Accessibility Issue