Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 8 Summary of evaluation of deliberative dialogues

From: Initiatives supporting evidence informed health system policymaking in Cameroon and Uganda: a comparative historical case study

Features of dialogues convened by KTPs Cameroon Uganda
(n = 77; five dialogues) (n = 69; three dialogues)
Mean SD Mean SD
Overall assessment 6.3 0.9 6.3 1.0
Design features commonly found in deliberative dialogues     
1. Addressed a high-priority policy issue 6.6 0.9 6.4 1.2
2. Provided an opportunity to discuss different features of the problem, including (where possible) how it affects particular groups 6.4 1.0 6.2 1.4
3. Provided an opportunity to discuss options for addressing the problem 6.2 1.2 6.1 1.5
4. Provided an opportunity to discuss key implementation considerations 6.2 0.9 6.1 1.3
5. Provided an opportunity to discuss who might do what differently 6.4 0.9 5.7 1.3
6. Was informed by a pre-circulated evidence brief 6.0 1.0 6.2 1.4
7. Was informed by discussion about the full range of factors that can inform how to approach a problem, possible options for addressing it, and key implementation considerations 6.3 1.0 5.9 1.5
8. Brought together many parties who could be involved in or affected by future decisions related to the issue 6.3 1.0 6.1 1.3
9. Aimed for fair representation among policymakers, stakeholders, and researchers 6.3 0.8 6.2 1.2
10. Engaged a facilitator to assist with deliberations 6.3 1.2 6.3 1.4
11. Allowed for frank, off-the-record deliberations by following the Chatham House Rule 6.5 0.9 6.2 1.5
12. Did not aim for consensus in the dialogue 6.3 1.1 6.2 1.3
  1. The ratings were on Likert scales from 1 to 7 (least useful = 1 and most useful = 7) for question 1 to 12. The highest rating (6.6) was for the dialogue addressing a high-priority policy issue in Cameroon and the lowest rating (5.7) was for the dialogue providing an opportunity to discuss who might do what differently.