Skip to main content


Table 1 Comparing key elements and guiding principles of “deliberative dialogues” to the design of our policy roundtable meeting

From: The use of a policy dialogue to facilitate evidence-informed policy development for improved access to care: the case of the Winnipeg Central Intake Service (WCIS)

Element [68, 30, 33, 34] Present Elements/details – policy roundtable meeting
Addresses a high-priority issue Yes • Of national and international concern; improving access to elective total joint replacement surgery of the hip and knee in Manitoba, Canada
Clear meeting objectives Yes • Clear objectives, articulated in advance
Pre-circulated information package No • Participants were provided with nametags and folders upon their arrival containing an agenda, list of policy directions to be discussed, related background information and an evaluation form; table seating was pre-assigned (eight participants (mixed backgrounds) per table with one recorder, one facilitator)
Pre-circulated evidence summaries No • To avoid social desirability bias during discussions, where possible, and to elicit the most authentic reactions/responses from participants based on their experience and knowledge; to best identify where/how participant views converge
Environment conducive for deliberations Yes • Downtown hotel ballroom (central location); presentation-style room set-up with round tables, flip charts, easels, post-it notes and pens at each table
• Frequent breaks, meals and honoraria provided
• Meeting was scheduled from 10:00 am – 3:00 pm, to allow for participant travel, maximise productivity and to reduce fatigue
Clear rules of engagement/task definition Yes • Overview provided by both facilitators and decision-maker research partners (WRHA and Manitoba Health) to set the tone and establish a safe, inclusive, non-judgmental and respectful space for discussion
• Nature and scope of the meeting and exercise was clearly defined
Recording of discussions Yes • Discussions related to the policy directions
Consultation of those who will be affected by issues Yes • Meeting was attended by five stakeholder groups, with participants attending from across Manitoba
Mix of participants and stakeholders representing all perspectives and interests Yes • Participants purposively selected to contribute to the policy discussion
• Assigned small group seating to maximise variation of perspectives at each table
Representation of researchers and decision-makers Yes • Meeting prior to the commencement of the policy roundtable meeting to ensure comfort, alignment and understanding of objectives, agenda
• Identified to all participants
• Presented during opening sessions
• Played the role of discussion facilitators and “recorders” at each table
• Presented summaries and next-steps at the conclusion of the meeting
Synthesis of high-quality research evidence used to identify needs and educate participants Yes • Synthesis of research, findings in the form of four short, pre-discussion presentations by research team members:
– Pertinent background information on waiting times in Canada, issues of access and the concept of ‘queuing’ and centralised intake
– Pertinent background information on single-entry models as an evidence-informed strategy to address waiting times and the local context related to hip and knee replacement surgery in Winnipeg, leading to the development of the WCIS (i.e. the problem to be addressed);
– Results of the research team’s comprehensive evaluation of the WCIS – sharing of perspectives from all five stakeholders
– Formal Introduction and Welcome by decision-maker research partners; setting the tone and providing an overview of the policy directions for discussion
• Results of research team’s evaluation were used to inform development of carefully considered evidence-informed policy directions
• Policy directions were the focus of the afternoon discussion/small-group sessions
Opportunities for discussion Yes • Opportunities provided to discuss the problem, possible solutions/approaches and considerations for ameliorated implementation through breakout sessions and open dialogue
Not emphasising need for consensus Yes • Casual, collegial atmosphere, with a focus on the need to work collaboratively and for all voices to be heard, perspectives to be shared
• Questions developed to focus discussion on the policy directions
• Table facilitators to support a more equal ‘playing field’
• Recorders at each table to capture details of discussion
Skilled facilitation Yes • External, respected facilitator from outside of the research team
• Welcomed participants; began with introduction to set the tone, expectations and to establish comfort and a safe, non-judgmental space
• Ensured breakout sessions for policy direction discussion were kept to 45 minutes per policy direction – policy directions 1 and 2 were discussed, followed by lunch, and then 3–5
• Facilitator moderated the (1) sharing of feedback and results from each group during the report-back session, (2) open discussion and (3) summary and next steps/closing
Outcome evaluation Yes • Post-meeting evaluation forms
Outputs produced, follow-up activities undertaken Yes • Follow-up national-level Policy Roundtable Meeting: Canadian Symposium on Single-Entry Models, hosted in Ottawa, Canada in April 2015
• Follow-up with our policy/decision-maker partners after the policy roundtable meeting and again 15 months following the policy roundtable meeting for their perspectives on the value of the meeting and for updates on the impact and use of the policy directions to improve access to scheduled clinical services in Manitoba