Citizen participation and stakeholder involvement are obtained through a national sample survey and a deliberative multi-criteria analysis, respectively.
Many options were suggested, including: focus groups, surveys, phone interviews, deliberative dialogue, elections/voting, stakeholder roundtable, and development of an arms length public commission on health.
Many methods exist to engage the public in pandemic planning (e.g., surveys, qualitative methods, deliberative forums, and social media); however, there is no consensus on how public engagement should be acquired as each method has its benefits and limitations [ 18, 21, 22, 24, 26, 48- 51].
We suggest that, both given and despite the practical difficulties of deliberative democracy, use of participative opinion surveying to better understand social groups with needs and interests that differ from national averages, may help to enhance policy legitimacy and hence the success of transition management.
Approaches range from deliberative citizens' juries to large population surveys using discrete choice experiments.
The positive views held by interviewees regarding evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues are supported by a recent survey of policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers from LMICs, whereby respondents viewed evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues very favorably and reported strong intentions to act on what they learned in the briefs and dialogues [ 36].
These include citizen juries, citizen panels, consensus conferences, planning cells, deliberative polling, focus groups, consensus building exercises, surveys, public hearings, open houses, citizen advisory committees, community planning, and referenda (Funtowitz & Ravetz 1993).
Our study suggests that a deliberative ideal lapses into paternalistic oriented reasoning in practice.
Despite the internal surveys, the overwhelming online pressure forced the scout leaders to hold a more deliberative conversation before the eventual vote that overturned the ban in May.
For example, the metrics of preference in surveys of individual choice, and the use of subjective scaling to understand participative and deliberative processes, need to be compared to acknowledge their complementarities as well as the appropriate conditions under which these methods are most efficient.
