Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: a study protocol describing a multimedia-based deliberative method

Pascale Lehoux; Philippe Gauthier; Bryn Williams-Jones; Fiona A Miller; Jennifer R Fishman; Myriam Hivon; Patrick Vachon

doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-81

Table 4 Data sources

From: Examining the ethical and social issues of health technology design through the public appraisal of prospective scenarios: a study protocol describing a multimedia-based deliberative method

Research objectives	Variables of interest	OBS	DEL	SURV
RO.1 To analyze how members of the public, in face-to-face and online environments, reason and deliberate around the desirability of sociotechnical changes in three thematic areas.	Processes:
	Ways in which participants reason, agree/disagree, and ponder the desirability of sociotechnical changes within/across thematic areas.	√	√	√
	The influence of group deliberations over the formation of one’s judgments (including the group moderator).	√	√	√
	Outcomes:
	Similarities/differences within/across thematic areas in participants’ knowledge claims, normative assumptions and argumentative patterns.		√	√
	Similarities/differences between the two deliberative environments in how views are articulated and shared.		√	√
RO.2 To identify usability and ethical issues raised by various design assumptions and features in three areas	Outcomes (to be interpreted in light of the scholarly literature):
	Usability and ethical issues that are addressed/ignored by participants within/across thematic areas.		√
	Design assumptions and features considered desirable/undesirable, that predominate, are reframed or ignored by participants.		√
RO.3 To assess whether the sociotechnical scenario method fosters critical, reflective and creative deliberations around the design of health innovations	Processes:
	Appraisal of the audiovisual and written components of each scenario.	√	√	√
	Participants’ level of engagement throughout the process and ability to relate to the protagonists’ and other participants’ stories.	√	√	√
	Expressions of creativity, reflexivity and critical sharing of information.	√	√	√
	Outcomes:
	Ways in which participants envision and describe the value of sociotechnical developments in healthcare.		√	√
	Critical observations toward design assumptions and features, and scope/depth of proposed alternatives (participants’ own conclusions).		√	√

OBS: observation; DEL: face-to-face and online deliberations; SURV: survey.

Back to article page