Table 1 Ratings of key design features
Design featuresa | Role categories | ||
|---|---|---|---|
All (n = 22)b,c | Researchers (n = 12)d | Partners (n = 8)e | |
Mean (standard deviation) | |||
Addressed high-priority policy issues | 5.2 (1.5) | 5.4 (0.7) | 5.3 (1.4) |
Provided an opportunity to discuss different aspects of the issues | 5.5 (1.5) | 5.6 (0.8) | 5.3 (1.4) |
Provided an opportunity to discuss possible options for addressing issues | 5.2 (1.5) | 5.2 (1.0) | 5.6 (1.2) |
Provided an opportunity to discuss key implementation considerations | 5.0 (1.5) | 4.9 (0.7) | 5.3 (1.2) |
Provided an opportunity to discuss who might do what differently | 4.9 (1.3) | 4.5 (1.3) | 5.2 (0.9) |
Deliberative was informed by a pre-circulated issue brief | 5.2 (1.6) | 5.5 (1.2) | 5.8 (1.6) |
Included discussion about factors that can inform how to approach the issues, possible options for addressing them and key implementation considerations | 5.4 (1.5) | 5.2 (1.6) | 5.6 (1.0) |
Brought together parties (including researchers and knowledge user partners) who could be involved in or affected by decisions related to the issues | 6.1 (1.4) | 6.0 (1.4) | 6.2 (1.2) |
Was limited to PreVAiL researchers and partners | 5.7 (1.4) | 5.8 (0.8) | 5.6 (1.2) |
Engaged a facilitator to assist with the deliberations | 6.0 (1.4) | 5.5 (1.7) | 6.5 (0.3) |
Did not aim for consensus | 5.5 (1.4) | 5.2 (1.4) | 6.4 (0.7) |
Allowed for frank, off-the-record deliberations following the Chatham House Rule | 6.3 (1.1) | 6.1 (1.2) | 6.7 (0.6) |