Table 8 Summary of evaluation of deliberative dialogues
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 | Â | Â | Â | Â | |
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 |