["Health Expectations, Volume 29, Issue 2, April 2026. ", "\nABSTRACT\n\nBackground\nDeliberative democratic methods are increasingly being used to involve the public in health policy decision‐making. These methods are rooted in deliberative democratic theory, which proposes the methods as democratic, inclusive and relevant ways to involve the public in policy decisions. Many practitioners have created methods for evaluating aspects of deliberative democratic engagement, but there are few practical guidelines for evaluating the quality of deliberative democratic processes as a whole. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a framework for evaluating the quality of Citizens' Juries based on the OECD's Evaluation Guidelines for Representative Deliberative Processes.\n\n\nMethods\nWe developed the Citizens' Jury Rigour and Improvement (C‐JuRI) framework based on the OECD's criteria for evaluating deliberative democratic processes. We justified each criterion with respect to the theoretical literature on deliberative democracy. We describe the process of piloting the framework on the artificial intelligence (AI) in Healthcare Jury—the first national Citizens' Jury on using AI in healthcare.\n\n\nResults\nThe C‐JuRI framework was an effective tool for evaluating the AI in Healthcare Jury. Using the framework, we identified and reported on several strengths of the AI in Healthcare jury, as well as some opportunities to make changes to future processes to better work towards a deliberative democratic ideal. Post hoc additions to the framework may have assisted us in identifying more opportunities for improvement.\n\n\nConclusion\nThe C‐JuRI framework is a useful tool for researchers and practitioners aiming to design high‐quality Citizens' Jury processes and for policymakers assessing the quality and rigour of deliberative democratic processes.\n\n\nPatient or Public Contribution\nThis framework is designed to evaluate the quality of initiatives to involve the public in decision‐making. The framework was piloted on a jury in which 28 members of the public deliberated about the use of AI in healthcare.\n"]