Table_1_Testing a deliberative democracy method with citizens of African ancestry to weigh pros and cons of targeted screening for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk.DOCX

BackgroundDemocratic deliberation (DD), a strategy to foster co-learning among researchers and communities, could be applied to gain informed public input on health policies relating to genomic translation.PurposeWe evaluated the quality of DD for gaining informed community perspectives regarding targeting communities of African Ancestry (AAn) for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) screening in Georgia.MethodsWe audiotaped a 2.5 day conference conducted via zoom in March 2021 to examine indicators of deliberation quality based on three principles: (1) inclusivity (diverse viewpoints based on participants' demographics, cancer history, and civic engagement), (2) consideration of factual information (balanced and unbiased expert testimonies, participant perceived helpfulness), and (3) deliberation (speaking opportunities, adoption of a societal perspective on the issue, reasoned justification of ideas, and participant satisfaction).ResultsWe recruited 24 participants who reflected the diversity of views and life experiences of citizens of AAn living in Georgia. The expert testimony development process we undertook for creating balanced factual information was endorsed by experts' feedback. Deliberation process evaluation showed that while participation varied (average number of statements = 24, range: 3–62), all participants contributed. Participants were able to apply expert information and take a societal perspective to deliberate on the pros and cons of targeting individuals of AAn for HBOC screening in Georgia.ConclusionsThe rigorous process of public engagement using deliberative democracy approach can successfully engage a citizenry with diverse and well-informed views, do so in a relatively short time frame and yield perspectives based on high quality discussion.