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) |