Evaluation of sampling bias using remote recruitment.

*<p>Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation.</p

Participation process indicators.

<p>Participation process indicators.</p

Distribution of cognitive performance according to web or clinic administration.

<p>Distribution of cognitive performance according to web or clinic administration.</p

Comparison of scores according to web-based or clinic-based administration.

*<p>The sample size varies according to analysis between 540 and 594.</p

Module completion in 642 participants who provided data.

*<p>Range of completion given when completion varied within module according to item.</p>**<p>Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale.</p

Impact of information and deliberation on the consistency of preferences for prioritisation in health care – evidence from discrete choice experiments undertaken alongside citizens’ juries

Public preferences are an important consideration for priority-setting. Critics suggest preferences of the public who are potentially naïve to the issue under consideration may lead to sub-optimal decisions. We assessed the impact of information and deliberation via a Citizens’ Jury (CJ) or preference elicitation methods (Discrete Choice Experiment, DCE) on preferences for prioritising access to bariatric surgery. Preferences for seven prioritisation criteria (e.g. obesity level, obesity-related comorbidities) were elicited from three groups who completed a DCE: (i) participants from two CJs (n = 28); (ii) controls who did not participate in the jury (n = 21); (iii) population sample (n = 1,994). Participants in the jury and control groups completed the DCE pre- and post-jury. DCE data were analysed using multinomial logit models to derive ‘priority weights’ for criteria for access to surgery. The rank order of criteria was compared across groups, time points and CJ recommendations. The extent to which the criteria were considered important were broadly consistent across groups and were similar to jury recommendations, but with variation in the rank order. Preferences of jurors but not controls were more differentiated (that is, criteria were assigned a greater range of priority weights) after than before the jury. Juror preferences pre-jury were similar to that of the public, but appeared to change during the course of the jury with greater priority given to a person with comorbidity. Conversely, controls appeared to give a lower priority to those with comorbidity and higher priority to treating very severe obesity after than before the jury. Being informed and undertaking deliberation had little impact on the criteria that were considered to be relevant for prioritising access to bariatric surgery but may have a small impact on the relative importance of criteria. CJs may clarify underlying rationale but may not provide substantially different prioritisation recommendations compared to a DCE.</p

Additional file 4: of The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research

ECOUTER conceptual schema-second order constructs. Description of data: Output of second order data analysis (DOCX 13 kb

Additional file 4: of The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research

ECOUTER conceptual schema-second order constructs. Description of data: Output of second order data analysis (DOCX 13 kb

Additional file 1: Figure S1. of The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research

ECOUTER mindmap. Image of final mindmap created during conference ECOUTER event (DOCX 226 kb

Additional file 3: of The ECOUTER methodology for stakeholder engagement in translational research

Analysis of participant contributions in an ECOUTER-first order constructs. Output of first order data analysis (DOCX 17 kb