Rubinelli Sara, von Groote Per Maximilian
From the Department of Health Sciences and Health Policy, University of Lucerne and Swiss Paraplegic Research, Lucerne; and Swiss Paraplegic Research, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 Feb;96(2 Suppl 1):S17-S22. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000635.
The literature on knowledge translation and dissemination in health care highlights the value of the stakeholder dialogue, namely, a structured process where stakeholders interact to identify the best solution to a given problem. By analyzing the stakeholder dialogue as a form of deliberative argumentation, this article identifies those factors that may hinder or facilitate reaching agreement among stakeholders on options to target problems.
Conceptual analysis based on the descriptive and evaluation methods of argumentation theory.
When stakeholders have a difference of opinion, confrontation alone does not lead to agreement. A normative model of critical discussion is needed to facilitate stakeholders in reaching this agreement and to prevent barriers to it that can result from personal factors (e.g., attitude and beliefs) or communication moves. This type of dialogue requires a training of stakeholders about the preconditions of argumentation and its different stages. The figure of the moderator is crucial in ensuring that the dialogue fulfills standards of reasonableness.
This article offers a reading of the stakeholder dialogue rooted in the tradition of critical thinking. It instructs on how to promote a collaborative exchange among stakeholders as a way to go beyond any expression of views.
医疗保健领域中有关知识转化与传播的文献强调了利益相关者对话的价值，即利益相关者相互交流以确定解决特定问题的最佳方案的结构化过程。通过将利益相关者对话分析为一种审议性论证形式，本文确定了可能阻碍或促进利益相关者就针对问题的选项达成一致的因素。
基于论证理论的描述性和评估方法进行概念分析。
当利益相关者存在意见分歧时，仅靠对抗无法达成一致。需要一种批判性讨论的规范模型来促进利益相关者达成这种一致，并防止因个人因素（如态度和信念）或沟通行为而产生的障碍。这种对话类型需要对利益相关者进行关于论证的前提条件及其不同阶段的培训。主持人的角色对于确保对话符合合理性标准至关重要。
本文提供了一种基于批判性思维传统的对利益相关者对话的解读。它指导如何促进利益相关者之间的协作性交流，以此超越任何观点的表达。
