Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy

Abstract

BackgroundDeliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.MethodsThe evaluation included a formative assessment of participants’ views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants’ intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).ConclusionOur findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change.

Considerações Teóricas Do Diálogo Deliberativo: Contribuições Para Prática, Política E Pesquisa Em Enfermagem

“…13,15 A comprehensive discussion of the principles of deliberative dialogue has been presented in the literature. 10,21 The key characteristics, as well as descriptions and goals, are summarized in table 1. Ensure a safe deliberation, assisting participants in expressing their ideas and ensuring the opportunity for all to contribute .…”

“…Finally, some researchers include a participant evaluation asking questions about the session, focusing on the process and procedures, and whether all key stakeholders were present or not. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] Impact and outcomes from the meeting may also be evaluated by the participants. These data provide a comprehensive picture of the effectiveness of the dialogue.…”

Utilidad de los diálogos deliberativos para la formulación de recomendaciones de guías de práctica clínica

“…El DD es una herramienta que consiste en un mecanismo interactivo que integra e interpreta la evidencia científica y el contexto sobre un tema de salud prioritario con participación multidisciplinar a fin de desarrollar políticas o recomendaciones, en este caso particular, basados en la evidencia (6,10) . Para ello, los DD requieren tres elementos: un ambiente que propicie el intercambio, participantes que reflejen distintos intereses y opiniones, y evidencia correctamente interpretada para informar a los tomadores de decisiones (1) .…”

“…Estos DD se realizaron como parte de la implementación del sistema GRADE a través de su herramienta GRADE PRO.GDT, en una etapa posterior a la priorización del problema, de la formulación de preguntas clínicas y del análisis de las evidencias. Los DD son procesos interactivos de intercambio de conocimiento que facilita la interacción entre investigadores, clínicos y tomadores de decisiones; permitiendo que tanto los actores involucrados en la toma de decisiones como representantes de la sociedad civil y de los pacientes, participen en la revisión de la evidencia científica y en la definición de recomendaciones que surgen del proceso, teniendo en cuenta el contexto político y las consideraciones para su implementación (6,7) .…”

A call for a backward design to knowledge translation

“…However, as research evidence is only one input into the policy-making process, researchers would need to consider holding a deliberative dialogue with a diverse range of audiences (12,18). Such dialogues have recently captured attention given their potential to address several key factors that influence the uptake of evidence in policy-making, namely: 1) interactions between researchers and policymakers; 2) timeliness of evidence; and 3) helping identify accordance between research evidence and the values, beliefs, interests or political goals, and strategies of politicians, stakeholders, and civil servants (19). A good example on the importance of the latter point can be drawn from the voluntary health insurance policy in Lebanon where failure to establish accordance between research evidence and tacit knowledge led to its eventual collapse (20).…”