ArticleBMC public health2014
Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy.
Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
42 citing papers in PubMed.
- The use of deliberative dialogue in health services research: a scoping review.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- How knowledge translation interventions involving health policy decision makers are evaluated: a scoping review protocol.HRB open research · 2026Article
- From evidence to action: expert perspectives on stakeholder dialogues in Swiss health policy.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Maximizing researcher-policymaker engagement in global public health.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Implementation and evaluation of a knowledge translation process to optimize the adoption of harm reduction in cannabis use by practitioners working with youth in Quebec: a mixed-methods study.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Knowledge translation platforms: Broker, intermediary or more? A scoping review of definitions, functions and characteristics.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Deliberative dialogue for co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation of health-promoting interventions: a scoping review protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Review
- Promoting sustained access to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia in Australia: a system-level implementation program.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Article
- Formulating recommendations to improve care for persons living with dementia: deliberative dialogues with multiple stakeholders in the province of Quebec, Canada.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- An ethical analysis of policy dialogues.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Botswana tuberculosis (TB) stakeholders broadly support scaling up next-generation whole genome sequencing: Ethical and practical considerations for Botswana and global health.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Enhancing Multiple Ways of Knowing Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study".International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Article
- Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Enhancing the capacity of the mental health and substance use health workforce to meet population needs: insights from a facilitated virtual policy dialogue.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Article
- Integrated knowledge translation to advance noncommunicable disease policy and practice in South Africa: application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Learning from public health and hospital resilience to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: protocol for a multiple case study (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, and Mali).Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Article
- Policy dialogue as a collaborative tool for multistakeholder health governance: a scoping study.BMJ global health · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeliberative 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsA 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).
conclusionOur 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.