Table 4.

Evaluation of level of engagement

Meta-criteria	Description	Statements	Meeting 1 (n = 21)	Meeting 2 (n = 37)	Meeting 3 (n = 23)
Respect	Process is collaborative with an atmosphere conducive to open airing of diverse viewpoints	I felt the small group activities were well prepared and encouraged discussion and collaboration	21	36	23
	Two-way flow of information that facilitates mutual learning	I felt my ideas were heard and I was able to contribute	19	37	23
		I felt the ideas of others in the group were heard and that they were able to contribute	21	37	23
Trust	Stakeholders are confident that the project outcomes reflect the discussions and decisions reached through a deliberative process	I felt that the overall outcomes from the meeting reflect the discussions and decisions of the group	20	35	20
Legitimacy	A balanced representation of relevant stakeholders is achieved	I felt the ideas discussed and shared today would be representative of other patients who did not attend the meeting	19	–	–
	Conflicts and disagreements are well managed	Overall I felt that any conflict and disagreements were well managed by the facilitator	19	32	–
Fairness	Stakeholders understand the purpose and process of engagement	The goals and objectives of the meeting were clear	21	34	23
		The workshop was well organized	21	36	23
Competence	Stakeholders understand the information and are able to contribute to the discussions and decision-making	I felt comfortable sharing my ideas and experiences with the group	20	37	23
Accountability	Stakeholder input is incorporated into the final decision	I am confident that the group’s input will be used	19	34	–