IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ijhplm/v40y2025i5p1182-1187.html

Application of Deliberative Democracy Processes in the Healthcare Setting to Determine Optimal Anal Cancer Screening Processes at a Ryan White Clinic

Author

Listed:
  • Riya Goel
  • Ghiara Lugo Diaz
  • Laura Gaydos
  • Nadi Kaonga
  • Lisa Flowers

Abstract

Introduction Stakeholder deliberation (SD) methodology can be used to facilitate rapid consensus building around clinical decisions in healthcare settings. This study applied SD methodology to complex decisions around screening methods for human papillomavirus (HPV)‐related anal high‐grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, which are precursors to anal cancer. Adherence to screening guidelines is crucial for early detection but implementing new anal cancer screening (ACS) guidelines requires robust infrastructure and collaboration across healthcare teams. This study offers an example of SD implementation processes that can be used effectively in complex healthcare settings. Methods Three stakeholder meetings were conducted with 8, 7 and 8 participants each, focussing on specific ACS topics. For each topic, participants reviewed background information and considered two alternatives. An initial vote was followed by group discussions to generate a comprehensive list of pros and cons for each alternative, additional deliberation, and a final vote to reach a minimum consensus threshold of 80%. Results Seven to eight participants attended each deliberation. Key issues addressed included anal cytology documentation, co‐testing with HPV, and histological sample documentation. Consensus levels reached 80%, 100%, and 100% respectively indicating a high level of agreement on decisions reached and suggesting a high likelihood of successful implementation and acceptance. Conclusion SD methodology effectively facilitated consensus on the process for implementing ACS guidelines, demonstrating its utility in clinical settings. Decision‐makers may consider adopting SD processes to streamline guideline implementation and optimise patient care across disease areas and clinical settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Riya Goel & Ghiara Lugo Diaz & Laura Gaydos & Nadi Kaonga & Lisa Flowers, 2025. "Application of Deliberative Democracy Processes in the Healthcare Setting to Determine Optimal Anal Cancer Screening Processes at a Ryan White Clinic," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(5), pages 1182-1187, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:40:y:2025:i:5:p:1182-1187
    DOI: 10.1002/hpm.3942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3942
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hpm.3942?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charles, Cathy & Gafni, Amiram & Whelan, Tim, 1997. "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: What does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 681-692, March.
    2. Paul, Charlotte & Nicholls, Rachel & Priest, Patricia & McGee, Rob, 2008. "Making policy decisions about population screening for breast cancer: The role of citizens' deliberation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 314-320, March.
    3. Xiangrui Chao & Yucheng Dong & Gang Kou & Yi Peng, 2022. "How to determine the consensus threshold in group decision making: a method based on efficiency benchmark using benefit and cost insight," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 143-177, September.
    4. O'Doherty, Kieran C. & Hawkins, Alice K. & Burgess, Michael M., 2012. "Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: Informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(9), pages 1604-1611.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel Antonio Espinoza & Andrea Manca & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2018. "Social value and individual choice: The value of a choice‐based decision‐making process in a collectively funded health system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 28-40, February.
    2. Yuexi Yang & Tingting Qu & Jinyue Yang & Ben Ma & Anli Leng, 2022. "Confucian Familism and Shared Decision Making in End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Cancers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    3. Fizzah B. Abidi & Libby Laing & Sue Cooper & Tim Coleman & Katarzyna A. Campbell, 2020. "Experts’ Views on Behaviour Change Techniques for Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(21), pages 1-13, October.
    4. Hyojung Tak & Gregory Ruhnke & Ya-Chen Shih, 2015. "The Association between Patient-Centered Attributes of Care and Patient Satisfaction," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(2), pages 187-197, April.
    5. Miller, Nancy & Weinstein, Marcie, 2007. "Participation and knowledge related to a nursing home admission decision among a working age population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 303-313, January.
    6. Budych, Karolina & Helms, Thomas M. & Schultz, Carsten, 2012. "How do patients with rare diseases experience the medical encounter? Exploring role behavior and its impact on patient–physician interaction," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(2), pages 154-164.
    7. France Légaré & Annette M. O'Connor & Ian D. Graham & Georges A. Wells & Stéphane Tremblay, 2006. "Impact of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework on the Agreement and the Difference between Patients' and Physicians' Decisional Conflict," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(4), pages 373-390, July.
    8. Parker, Lisa, 2017. "Including values in evidence-based policy making for breast screening: An empirically grounded tool to assist expert decision makers," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 793-799.
    9. Juuso Pajasmaa & Kaisa Miettinen & Johanna Silvennoinen, 2025. "Group Decision Making in Multiobjective Optimization: A Systematic Literature Review," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 329-371, April.
    10. Brown, Timothy T. & Lee, Jadyn & Markarian, Sione, 2024. "The causal impact of shared decision making on pain outcomes: Gender matters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 355(C).
    11. Nikita Moiseev & Alexey Mikhaylov & Hasan Dinçer & Serhat Yüksel, 2023. "Market capitalization shock effects on open innovation models in e-commerce: golden cut q-rung orthopair fuzzy multicriteria decision-making analysis," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 1-25, December.
    12. Maura Galletta & Maria Francesca Piazza & Stefania Luisa Meloni & Elsa Chessa & Ilenia Piras & Judith E. Arnetz & Ernesto D’Aloja, 2022. "Patient Involvement in Shared Decision-Making: Do Patients Rate Physicians and Nurses Differently?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-13, October.
    13. Huschke, Susann, 2014. "Performing deservingness. Humanitarian health care provision for migrants in Germany," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 352-359.
    14. Karen Scherr & Rebecca K. Delaney & Peter Ubel & Valerie C. Kahn & Daniel Hamstra & John T. Wei & Angela Fagerlin, 2022. "Preparing Patients with Early Stage Prostate Cancer to Participate in Clinical Appointments Using a Shared Decision Making Training Video," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(3), pages 364-374, April.
    15. Simon N. Whitney & Margaret Holmes-Rovner & Howard Brody & Carl Schneider & Laurence B. McCullough & Robert J. Volk & Amy L. McGuire, 2008. "Beyond Shared Decision Making: An Expanded Typology of Medical Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 28(5), pages 699-705, September.
    16. Wolfgang Kuhle, 2023. "Latency arbitrage and the synchronized placement of orders," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 9(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. Odette Wegwarth & Wolfgang Gaissmaier & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2011. "Deceiving Numbers," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(3), pages 386-394, May.
    18. Karnieli-Miller, Orit & Eisikovits, Zvi, 2009. "Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 1-8, July.
    19. Paul C. Schroy III & Karen Emmons & Ellen Peters & Julie T. Glick & Patricia A. Robinson & Maria A. Lydotes & Shamini Mylvanaman & Stephen Evans & Christine Chaisson & Michael Pignone & Marianne Prout, 2011. "The Impact of a Novel Computer-Based Decision Aid on Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 93-107, January.
    20. Diamond-Brown, Lauren, 2018. "“It can be challenging, it can be scary, it can be gratifying”: Obstetricians’ narratives of negotiating patient choice, clinical experience, and standards of care in decision-making," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 48-54.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:ijhplm:v:40:y:2025:i:5:p:1182-1187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0749-6753 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.