Lavis John N, Boyko Jennifer A, Gauvin Francois-Pierre
McMaster Health Forum, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
BMC Public Health. 2014 Dec 17;14:1287. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1287.
Deliberative dialogues have recently captured attention in the public health policy arena because they have the potential to address several key factors that influence the use of research evidence in policymaking. We conducted an evaluation of three deliberative dialogues convened in Canada by the National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy in order to learn more about deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.
The evaluation included a formative assessment of participants' views about and experiences with ten key design features of the dialogues, and a summative assessment of participants' intention to use research evidence of the type that was discussed at the dialogue. We surveyed participants immediately after each dialogue was completed and again six months later. We analyzed the ratings using descriptive statistics and the written comments by conducting a thematic analysis.
A total of 31 individuals participated in the three deliberative dialogues that we evaluated. The response rate was 94% (N = 29; policymakers (n = 9), stakeholders (n = 18), researchers (n = 2)) for the initial survey and 56% (n = 14) for the follow-up. All 10 of the design features that we examined as part of the formative evaluation were rated favourably by all participant groups. The findings of the summative evaluation demonstrated a mean behavioural intention score of 5.8 on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
Our findings reinforce the promise of deliberative dialogues as a strategy for supporting evidence-informed public health policies. Additional work is needed to understand more about which design elements work in which situations and for different issues, and whether intention to use research evidence is a suitable substitute for measuring actual behaviour change.
审议性对话最近在公共卫生政策领域引起了关注，因为它们有可能解决影响政策制定中研究证据使用的几个关键因素。我们对加拿大健康公共政策国家协作中心召开的三次审议性对话进行了评估，以便更多地了解聚焦于健康公共政策的审议性对话。
该评估包括对参与者对对话十个关键设计特征的看法和体验进行形成性评估，以及对参与者使用在对话中讨论的那种研究证据的意图进行总结性评估。我们在每次对话结束后立即对参与者进行调查，并在六个月后再次调查。我们使用描述性统计分析评分，并通过主题分析对书面评论进行分析。
共有31人参与了我们评估的三次审议性对话。初始调查的回复率为94%（N = 29；政策制定者（n = 9）、利益相关者（n = 18）、研究人员（n = 2）），后续调查的回复率为56%（n = 14）。作为形成性评估一部分我们考察的所有10个设计特征都得到了所有参与者群体的好评。总结性评估结果显示，在从1（强烈不同意）到7（强烈同意）的量表上，行为意图平均得分为5.8。
我们的研究结果强化了审议性对话作为支持循证公共卫生政策的一种策略的前景。需要开展更多工作，以进一步了解哪些设计要素在哪些情况下适用于哪些不同问题，以及使用研究证据的意图是否是衡量实际行为变化的合适替代指标。
