Skip to main content

Table 1 Ratings of key design features by role categories

From: Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy

Design feature1

Role categories M(SD)

 

All (n = 29)2

Policymakers (n = 9)3

Stakeholders (n = 18)4

Researchers (n = 2)5

Addressed a policy issue faced in your jurisdiction

5.2(1.2)

4.9(1.2)

5.2(1.2)

6.5(0.7)

Focused on different ways in which a policy issue could be framed

4.9(1.3)

4.5(1.2)

4.9(1.3)

6.5(0.7)

Focused on alternative ways of addressing a policy issue

5.2(1.1)

4.6(1.1)

5.4(1.0)

6.0(0.0)

Was informed by pre-circulated packaged evidence summaries

5.7(1.0)

5.3(1.1)

5.8(1.0)

6.5(0.7)

Was informed by discussion about the full range of factors that can inform choices among alternative ways of framing and addressing a policy issue

5.2(1.4)

4.7(2.0)

5.3(1.1)

6.5(0.7)

Brought together all parties who could be affected by the outcome

5.4(1.7)

4.0(1.8)

5.8(1.4)

6.5(0.7)

Ensured fair representation among policymakers, those stakeholders who could be affected by the outcome, and researchers

5.0(1.4)

4.0(1.6)

5.4(1.0)

6.0(1.4)

Engaged one or more skilled facilitators to assist with the deliberations

6.1(1.0)

5.4(1.0)

6.3(0.9)

7.0(0.0)

Allowed for frank, off-the-record deliberations by following the Chatham House rule

6.0(1.3)

5.9(1.6)

5.9(1.2)

7.0(0.0)

Did not aim for consensus

5.9(1.0)

6.0(1.2)

5.7(1.0)

7.0(0.0)

  1. 1Questions pertaining to design features were on a scale from 1 (worthless) to 7 (useful).
  2. 2The number of participants who responded to each question ranged from 23 to 29.
  3. 3The number of policymakers who responded to each question ranged from 6 to 9.
  4. 4The number of stakeholders who responded to each question ranged from 13 to 18.
  5. 5The number of researchers who responded to each question was 2.