Table 2 Survey evaluation of policy briefs and deliberative dialogues

1. The policy brief described the context for the issue being addressed

6.55

6.5

6.53

2. The policy brief described different features of the problem, including (where possible) how it affects particular groups

6.63

6.5

6.57

3. The policy brief described elements of an approach for addressing the problem

6.53

6.5

6.52

4. The policy brief described what is known on the basis of synthesized research evidence about each of the elements and where there are gaps in what is known

6.6

6.4

6.50

5. The policy brief described key implementation considerations

6.1

6

6.05

6. The policy brief took quality considerations into account when discussing the research evidence

6.35

6.4

6.38

7. The policy brief took local applicability considerations into account when discussing the research evidence

5.78

5.8

5.79

8. The policy brief did not conclude with particular recommendations

5.57

5.7

5.64

9. The policy brief employed a graded-entry format (e.g., a list of key messages and a full report)

6.65

6.7

6.68

10. The purpose of the policy brief was to present the available research evidence on a high-priority policy issue to inform a policy dialogue in which research evidence would be just one input to the discussion. How well did the policy brief achieve its purpose?

6.74

6.3

6.52

1. The stakeholder dialogue was informed by a pre-circulated Policy Brief/Briefing Note

6.76

6.7

6.73

2. The stakeholder dialogue was informed by discussion about the full range of factors that can inform how to approach a problem, possible elements of an approach for addressing it, and key recommendations

6.47

6.7

6.59

3. The stakeholder dialogue brought together many parties who could be involved in or affected by future decisions related to the issue

6.53

6.2

6.36

4. The stakeholder dialogue aimed for fair representation among policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers

6.59

6.2

6.39

5. The stakeholder dialogue engaged a facilitator to assist with the deliberations

6.71

6.6

6.65

6. The stakeholder dialogue allowed for frank, off-the-record deliberations by following the Chatham House rule: “Participants are free to use the information received during the meeting, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

6.63

6.6

6.61

7. The stakeholder dialogue did not aim for consensus

6.36

5.6

5.98

8. The purpose of the stakeholder dialogue was to support a full discussion of relevant considerations (including research evidence) about a high-priority policy issue to inform action. How well did the stakeholder dialogue achieve its purpose?

6.69

6.2

6.44