English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Structured deliberations among members of the public are increasingly viewed as useful inputs to health policy decisions that also rely on scientific evidence and expertise. Such deliberations typically aim for discussions that explore a diversity of ideas and perspectives. However, the concept of a diverse discussion has not been thoroughly examined and methods for measuring the extent to which a discussion actually was diverse are lacking. In this article, we develop a theoretical account of diverse discussion and propose a method for operationalizing it, which we illustrate by means of an analysis of transcripts from public deliberations on cancer drug funding in Canada.

Diverse Discussion in Public Deliberation on Cancer Drug Funding