Table 2 Illustrative examples of written comments about perceived usefulness of the design features

Usefulness of the design features

• "it was valuable to read the material prior to the meeting – [the pre-packaged evidence summaries] were appropriate length"

• "[not aiming for consensus was] very useful as we could just listen to teach other without judging"

• "[the Chatham House rule] made me feel more comfortable being open"

• "the facilitator was knowledgeable and drew more detail out when necessary"

Opportunities for improvement

• Stakeholder involvement (n = 33)

• "a broader range of parties – possibly private sector representatives [should have been included]"

• "[there was not] enough diversity between parties’ perspectives on the policy issues"

• Dialogue processes (n = 24)

• "recap or summarize the points raised"

• "a wrap up summary with take away learning’s [should be] included"

• Scope (n = 19)

• "[the] issues discussed could have been more diverse [there was] lots of overlap in discussion"

• "obesity [is] such a complex issue [and] this took much time to discuss - maybe a simpler issue?"

• Quality and relevance of content (n = 19)

• "[the policy issue could have been framed with] more examples from across Canada and internationally"

• "more comprehensive background/policy materials [could be] researched"

• Facilitation (n = 14)

• "the facilitator needed to redirect the group back to the questions"

• "a better intro about what we had to do even after intro I still wasn’t completely sure"