Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers

Jackie M. Street; Helen Marshall; Annette J. Braunack-Mayer; Wendy A. Rogers; Philip Ryan; FluViews Team

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12

Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers

Jackie M. Street, Helen Marshall, Annette J. Braunack-Mayer, Wendy A. Rogers, Philip Ryan, FluViews Team

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This Chapter concerns public perceptions about who should have access to scarce antiviral drugs and vaccines in a flu pandemic. Two methods of public engagement are compared and evaluated; namely a survey, and a deliberative forum. In undertaking public engagement, researchers and policy makers may be motivated by the desire to build policy which is acceptable and workable in the community, that is instrumental goals are foremost. With instrumental goals in mind, there are a number of ways to collect community views but they may provide quite different answers as shown in the two examples described here. In the chapter we explore, the relationship between choice of method of engagement and (i) the findings of the engagement exercise, and (ii) the acceptability and applicability of these findings in a policy context.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Big picture bioethics
Subtitle of host publication	developing democratic policy in contested domains
Editors	Susan Dodds, Rachel A. Ankeny
Place of Publication	Switzerland
Publisher	Springer, Springer Nature
Pages	245-261
Number of pages	17
ISBN (Electronic)	9783319322407
ISBN (Print)	9783319322391
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12
Publication status	Published - 2016

Publication series

Name	The international library of ethics, law and technology
Volume	16
ISSN (Print)	1875-0044
ISSN (Electronic)	1875-0036

Keywords

Community participation
Deliberation
Pandemic
Public engagement
Resource allocation

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12

Cite this

Street, J. M., Marshall, H., Braunack-Mayer, A. J., Rogers, W. A., Ryan, P., & FluViews Team (2016). Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers. In S. Dodds, & R. A. Ankeny (Eds.), Big picture bioethics: developing democratic policy in contested domains (pp. 245-261). (The international library of ethics, law and technology; Vol. 16). Springer, Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12

Street, Jackie M. ; Marshall, Helen ; Braunack-Mayer, Annette J. et al. / Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia : two methods, two answers. Big picture bioethics: developing democratic policy in contested domains. editor / Susan Dodds ; Rachel A. Ankeny. Switzerland : Springer, Springer Nature, 2016. pp. 245-261 (The international library of ethics, law and technology).

@inbook{6cba28665a564e838e6838d9567deb6e,

title = "Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers",

abstract = "This Chapter concerns public perceptions about who should have access to scarce antiviral drugs and vaccines in a flu pandemic. Two methods of public engagement are compared and evaluated; namely a survey, and a deliberative forum. In undertaking public engagement, researchers and policy makers may be motivated by the desire to build policy which is acceptable and workable in the community, that is instrumental goals are foremost. With instrumental goals in mind, there are a number of ways to collect community views but they may provide quite different answers as shown in the two examples described here. In the chapter we explore, the relationship between choice of method of engagement and (i) the findings of the engagement exercise, and (ii) the acceptability and applicability of these findings in a policy context.",

keywords = "Community participation, Deliberation, Pandemic, Public engagement, Resource allocation",

author = "Street, {Jackie M.} and Helen Marshall and Braunack-Mayer, {Annette J.} and Rogers, {Wendy A.} and Philip Ryan and {FluViews Team}",

year = "2016",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12",

language = "English",

isbn = "9783319322391",

series = "The international library of ethics, law and technology",

publisher = "Springer, Springer Nature",

pages = "245--261",

editor = "Dodds, {Susan } and Ankeny, { Rachel A. }",

booktitle = "Big picture bioethics",

address = "United States",

}

Street, JM, Marshall, H, Braunack-Mayer, AJ, Rogers, WA, Ryan, P & FluViews Team 2016, Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers. in S Dodds & RA Ankeny (eds), Big picture bioethics: developing democratic policy in contested domains. The international library of ethics, law and technology, vol. 16, Springer, Springer Nature, Switzerland , pp. 245-261. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12

Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers. / Street, Jackie M.; Marshall, Helen; Braunack-Mayer, Annette J. et al.
Big picture bioethics: developing democratic policy in contested domains. ed. / Susan Dodds; Rachel A. Ankeny. Switzerland : Springer, Springer Nature, 2016. p. 245-261 (The international library of ethics, law and technology; Vol. 16).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter › peer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia

T2 - two methods, two answers

AU - Street, Jackie M.

AU - Marshall, Helen

AU - Braunack-Mayer, Annette J.

AU - Rogers, Wendy A.

AU - Ryan, Philip

AU - FluViews Team

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - This Chapter concerns public perceptions about who should have access to scarce antiviral drugs and vaccines in a flu pandemic. Two methods of public engagement are compared and evaluated; namely a survey, and a deliberative forum. In undertaking public engagement, researchers and policy makers may be motivated by the desire to build policy which is acceptable and workable in the community, that is instrumental goals are foremost. With instrumental goals in mind, there are a number of ways to collect community views but they may provide quite different answers as shown in the two examples described here. In the chapter we explore, the relationship between choice of method of engagement and (i) the findings of the engagement exercise, and (ii) the acceptability and applicability of these findings in a policy context.

AB - This Chapter concerns public perceptions about who should have access to scarce antiviral drugs and vaccines in a flu pandemic. Two methods of public engagement are compared and evaluated; namely a survey, and a deliberative forum. In undertaking public engagement, researchers and policy makers may be motivated by the desire to build policy which is acceptable and workable in the community, that is instrumental goals are foremost. With instrumental goals in mind, there are a number of ways to collect community views but they may provide quite different answers as shown in the two examples described here. In the chapter we explore, the relationship between choice of method of engagement and (i) the findings of the engagement exercise, and (ii) the acceptability and applicability of these findings in a policy context.

KW - Community participation

KW - Deliberation

KW - Pandemic

KW - Public engagement

KW - Resource allocation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098139040&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9783319322391

T3 - The international library of ethics, law and technology

SP - 245

EP - 261

BT - Big picture bioethics

A2 - Dodds, Susan

A2 - Ankeny, Rachel A.

PB - Springer, Springer Nature

CY - Switzerland

ER -

Street JM, Marshall H, Braunack-Mayer AJ, Rogers WA, Ryan P, FluViews Team. Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers. In Dodds S, Ankeny RA, editors, Big picture bioethics: developing democratic policy in contested domains. Switzerland : Springer, Springer Nature. 2016. p. 245-261. (The international library of ethics, law and technology). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32240-7_12

Seeking community views on allocation of scarce resources in a pandemic in Australia: two methods, two answers

Abstract

Publication series

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this