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) |
aQuestions pertaining to design features were on a scale from 1 (very unhelpful) to 7 (very helpful)
bThe number of participants who responded to each question was 21 or 22
cThree participants did not provide responses to their role categories and one participant identified as both researcher and partner
dThe number of researchers who responded to each question was 11 or 12
eThe number of partners who responded to each question was 7 or 8