Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Participatory Medicine
Date Submitted: Apr 19, 2024
Open Peer Review Period: Apr 24, 2024 - May 24, 2024
Date Accepted: Jun 19, 2025
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Online, remote public deliberation across three continents: learnings from the MindKind Study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Public deliberation is a qualitative research method that has successfully been used to solicit lay people’s perspectives on health ethics topics, but questions remain as to whether this traditionally in-person method translates into the online context. The MindKind Study conducted public deliberation sessions to gauge the concerns and aspirations of young people in India, South Africa, and the United Kingdom in regard to a prospective mental health databank. This paper details our adaptations to and evaluation of the public deliberation method in the online context, especially in the presence of a digital divide.
Objective:
The purpose of this paper is to assess the quality of online public deliberation and share emerging learnings in a remote disseminated qualitative research context.
Methods:
We convened participants for 2 hours of structured deliberation over an online video conferencing platform. We provided participants with multimedia informational materials describing different ways to manage mental health data. We analyzed the quality of online public deliberation in variable resource settings on the basis of (1) equal participation, (2) respect for the opinions of others, (3) adoption of a societal perspective, and (4) reasoned justification of ideas. In order to assess the depth of comprehension of informational materials, we used qualitative data pertaining directly to the material provided.
Results:
The sessions were broadly of high quality, although some sessions suffered from unstable internet connection and resulting multimodal participation, complicating our ability to perform a quality assessment. English-speaking participants displayed a deep understanding of complex informational materials. We found that participants were particularly sensitive to linguistic and semiotic choices in informational materials. A more fundamental barrier to understanding was encountered by participants who utilized materials translated from English.
Conclusions:
Although online public deliberation may produce similar quality outcomes to in-person public deliberation, researchers who utilize remote methods should plan for technological and linguistic barriers when working with a multinational population. Our recommendations to researchers include budgetary planning, logistical considerations, and ensuring participants’ psychological safety.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.