Abelson 2003.

Methods	RCT Risk of Bias: High Trial aim: 'To examine the effects of introducing different opportunities for deliberation into a process for obtaining public input into a community health goals priority setting project'.
Participants	46 participants were identified and recruited from a list of 176 community organisations. They were randomly assigned to three trial arms: mail survey (17), telephone discussion (16), face‐to‐face group meeting (13). Their average age was 47.5 years. 80% female. 93% with at least college or university‐level degree. 80% employed. Setting: Small community of approximately 90,000 residents. Country: Canada
Interventions	Type of process: Consumer involvement in healthcare policy. All participants were asked to prioritise local health concerns by completing a survey. Then two of the trial groups were given the opportunity to deliberate (telephone discussion and a 2.5 hour long face‐to‐face community meeting respectively) before completing the same survey again. The mail survey group was given no opportunity to deliberate, and 8 of its participants completed the survey for the second time. Priorities were compared both before and after deliberation and between trial groups.
Outcomes	Impact of deliberative methods on: prioritising local health concerns for action; rating the importance of local strengths for improving community health; and ranking of health determinants.
Notes	Due to low response rate in the mail survey group, trial authors excluded this group's results from their analysis.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	B ‐ Unclear