Table 1 Selected feedback on the Participatory Synthesis process from reviewers/conversation hosts and participants

Feedback from reviewers/conversation hosts

• I really enjoyed this activity. I think that the fact that it took some effort to move groups on to the next poster suggests that others enjoyed it too. The discussion about the content of the poster and the sharing of information as we moved around the room was really interesting… Important for the facilitators to have read the articles and summaries—this helped to get the best from the pairs of researchers/service providers … [It was] remarkably difficult to get researchers to move on to higher level synthesis of info—they tend to want to review all the detail themselves, reluctant to trust and take others’ perceptions at face value, and to work with the synthesis of these perceptions rather than go back to the specifics of the papers. (Reviewer 1)

• The [second workshop] helped people to process the info; it was useful for teams to come back to this after a break, and to hear others’ perceptions, questions. (Reviewer 2)

• I think it worked well—I thought that the way it was rolled out was excellent—clear and precise instructions at each stage made the sessions run well. (Reviewer 3)

• I think that it did help to have someone in the group who had read all the articles ahead of the session. It will be interesting to see how it all comes together…I think you did well with structuring the whole approach which has been very interactive and novel….I think that it was a useful process to have the wider review by all participants/groups of the workings from the first session. It was helpful for our group, because this process allowed for service provider representatives to review our work in the first session, and to add/supplement the initial work. (Reviewer 4)

Feedback from participants

• For me the highlight was the small group discussions. They provide opportunity to share ideas from both sides, particularly when the group consists of a mix of professionals with different areas of expertise. The session on analysing the published CRE literature was particularly beneficial for me, even though there were perceptions that it was a superficial experience. Once we extracted the key information and then sorted them it was exciting to see some common themes coming up. I felt very proud to be part of a team that has done such wonderful work. (Participant 1)

• It was refreshing in the sense of being an active interactive process. It got people standing and moving rather than the usual sitting for a long time. [A benefit was] An overview of the scope and key elements of the CQI related research findings… I think the approach works and will be useful to apply in other contexts. (Participant 2)

• As part of the [Developmental Evaluation] process it is important to try new things and this workshop approach is a brilliant idea—it’s a different way of getting more from research results and a way of getting a ‘global’ perspective, a helicopter view of the CRE research findings—I really liked the concept, a great idea. (Participant 3)

• As an exercise for CRE, the workshop is not so much about having a scientifically rigorous research process that can be validated but as an internal process for giving voice to all members of the CRE. It is a perfectly good way to bring all voices together to sift out what should be the key messages. I think it is a really great way to give people ownership and to be able to participate in that process. It is an organisationally sound, useful, engaging, collaborative process for doing something that could otherwise be done by a select few. (Participant 4)