Advertisement

Seeking Community Views on Allocation of Scarce Resources in a Pandemic in Australia: Two Methods, Two Answers

  • Jackie M. StreetEmail author
  • Helen Marshall
  • Annette J. Braunack-Mayer
  • Wendy A. Rogers
  • Philip Ryan
  • FluViews Team
Chapter
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 16)

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

Deliberation Community participation Pandemic Resource allocation Public engagement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge additional members of the FluViews team: Janet Hiller, Rod Givney, Christine Andrews, Peng Bi, Ann Koehler and Heather Petty. Our partner in this research was the South Australian Department of Health, whose support we appreciate. Funding was provided by the Australian Research Council via its Linkage Grant program (LP 0775341).

References

  1. Abelson, J., M. Giacomini, P. Lehoux, and F. Gauvin. 2007. Bringing ‘the public’ into health technology assessment and coverage policy decisions: From principles to practice. Health Policy 82(1): 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blaxland, J. 2002. Information-Era Manoeuvre: The Australian-Led Mission to East Timor. Journal of Information Warfare 1(3): 94–106.Google Scholar
  3. Braunack-Mayer, A.J., J.M. Street, W.A. Rogers, et al. 2010. Including the public in pandemic planning: A deliberative approach. BMC Public Health 10: 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Department of Health and Ageing. 2008a. Australian health management plan for pandemic influenza. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  5. Department of Health and Ageing. 2008b. Media release: Securing the nation against potential threats. Canberra:Australian Government.Google Scholar
  6. Department of Health and Ageing. 2009a. Media release: Federal government adds more antivirals to National Medicines Stockpile. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  7. Department of Health and Ageing. 2009b. New pandemic phase protect, Canberra: Australian Government. 17th June. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/Content/news-170609. Accessed 12 Apr 2010.
  8. Fiore, A.E., and K.M. Neuzil. 2009. Influenza a(H1N1) monovalent vaccines for children. The Journal of the American Medical Association 303(1): 73–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenberg, M.E., M.H. Lai, et al. 2009. Response to a monovalent 2009 influenza a (H1N1) vaccine. New England Journal of Medicine 361: 2405–2413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Health and Human Services (HHS USA). 2005. Citizen voices on pandemic flu choices: A report of the public engagement pilot project on Pandemic Influenza. ppc.unl.edu/documents/PEPPPI_FINAL REPORT _DEC_ 2005 .pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.Google Scholar
  11. Hegarty, D. 2001. Monitoring peace in Solomon Islands. SSGM Working Paper 01/4. In State Society and Governance in Melanesia Project. RSPAS, Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
  12. Irish Council of Bioethics. 2006. Ethical Dilemmas in a Pandemic: Results of the ICB/TNS MRBI Survey. In Proceedings of the Irish Council for bioethics conference. Dublin. www.bioethics.ie/uploads/docs/PandemicProceedings.pdf. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.
  13. Marshall, H., P. Ryan, D. Roberton, J. Street, and M. Watson. 2009. Pandemic influenza: Community preparedness? American Journal of Public Health 99(S2): S365–S371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nolan, T., J. McVernon, M. Skeljo, et al. 2010. Immunogenicity of a monovalent influenza a (H1N1) 2009 vaccine in infants and children – A randomized trial. The Journal of the American Medical Association 303(1): 73–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pan-Canadian Public Health Network. June 2007. Annex 3.7-Report on citizen and stakeholder deliberative dialogues on the use of antivirals for prophylaxis. Pan-Canadian public health network council report and policy recommendations on the use of antivirals for prophylaxis during an influenza pandemic. http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/2008/prapip-uappi/index-eng.php. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.
  16. Pearce, A., P. Mark, N. Gray, and C. Curry. 2006. Responding to the Boxing Day tsunami disaster in Aceh, Indonesia: Western and South Australian contributions. Emergency Medicine Australasia 18: 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rogers, W., J.M. Street, A.J. Braunack-Mayer, J.E. Hiller, and the FluViews Team. 2009. Pandemic influenza communication: Views from a deliberative forum. Health Expectations 12(3): 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rowe, G., and L.J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Value 25(1): 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roxon, N. 2009. Transcript of press conference with Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, Australian Minister for Health and Ageing, 22 July. http://www.rcna.org.au/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=50173&A=SearchResult&SearchID=1273333&ObjectID=50173&ObjectType=6. Accessed 11 Apr 2010.
  20. Smith, G., and C. Wales. 2000. Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy. Political Studies 48: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. StataCorp. 2005. Stata statistical software: Release 9. College Station: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  22. Street, J., K. Duszynski, S. Krawczyk, and A. Braunack-Mayer. 2014. The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 109: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. The Daily Telegraph, 11 June 2009. WHO points to Australian cases over swine flu pandemic. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/classmate/who-points-to-australian-cases-over-swine-flu-pandemic/story-e6frewti-1225732672797. Accessed 6 Sept 2011.
  24. Uscher-Pines, L., S.B. Omer, D.J. Barnett, et al. 2006. Priority setting for pandemic influenza: An analysis of national preparedness plans. PLoS Medicine 3(10): e436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Warren, M.E. 2009. Two trust based uses of minipublics in democracy. In Democracy and the deliberative society conference. University of York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jackie M. Street
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helen Marshall
    • 2
  • Annette J. Braunack-Mayer
    • 1
  • Wendy A. Rogers
    • 3
  • Philip Ryan
    • 1
  • FluViews Team
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.School of Paediatrics and Reproductive Health and Robinson Research InstituteUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Philosophy and Department of Clinical MedicineMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations