225369 Learning about learning from the public: Large and small group public engagement methods

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

J. Eline Garrett, JD , Health Policy and Public Engagement Consultant, Minneapolis, MN
Dorothy E. Vawter, PhD , Minnesota Center for Health Care Ethics, St Paul, MN
Angela Witt Prehn, PhD , School of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN
Karen G. Gervais, PhD , Minnesota Center for Health Care Ethics, St Paul, MN
In 2009 as part of the multi-year Minnesota Pandemic Ethics Project, we conducted extensive public engagements about ethically rationing the state's health-related resources during a severe influenza pandemic. Lessons learned about method extend beyond the topic of pandemic preparedness. The engagements encompassed two large community forums and nine small group discussions, each six hours in length. The forums included introductory factual presentations with opportunities for questions, followed by a series of structured, facilitated small and large group discussions. Audience response technology (ART) was employed to poll the large group during the discussions. The forums concluded with an individual exercise in which participants were asked to arrange a set of cards to illustrate their priorities. These methods were adapted for the small group engagements, eliminating ART and keeping participants together for all the discussions, rather than breaking them into yet smaller conversations periodically. We will discuss strengths and limitations of both large and small group methodology, in terms of their relative complexity and need for supporting resources, as well as tradeoffs in the breadth and depth of substantive input gleaned from each. Relevant factors include budget and staffing limitations, facilitation experience, strength of local partnerships and desire for geographic diversity. We'll discuss whether, when and how to employ ART. We'll share an example of an individual exercise that was used both to gather data and to prompt group discussion. This is a hands-on learning opportunity to share methods, experiences, and ideas that will inform your next public engagement opportunity.

Learning Areas:
Public health or related public policy

Learning Objectives:
Describe a robust public engagement process that was employed successfully to glean ethical perspectives about a difficult public health policy matter. Compare strengths and limitations of large and small group engagement.

Keywords: Public Health Policy, Community Participation

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am a leader of the Minnesota Pandemic Ethics project and the public engagement processes that have been integral to the project. I conducted several large and small group engagements during the project.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.