Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy

BMC Public Health

Francois-Pierre Gauvin³  Jennifer A Boyko¹  John N Lavis² 

[1] School of Health Studies, Western University, London, Canada;Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, USA;McMaster Health Forum, Hamilton, ON, Canada

关键词: Public health policy;    Evidence-informed decision-making;    Knowledge translation;    Deliberative dialogue;   

Others  :  1092161
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1287

 received in 2013-12-13, accepted in 2014-10-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusion

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Lavis et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Culyer AJ, Lomas J: Deliberative process and evidence-informed decisions-making in health care: Do they work and how might we know? Evid Policy 2006, 12(31):357-371.
• [2]Lavis JN, Davies HTO, Oxman AD, Denis J-L, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E: Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005, 10(1):S1:35-S1:48.
• [3]Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Abelson J, Dobbins M, Carter N: Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Soc Sci Med 2012, 75(11):1938-1945.
• [4]Lavis JN, Boyko JA, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Fretheim A: SUPPORT tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 14: organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst 2009, 7:S14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Lomas J, Culyer T, McCutcheon C, McAuley L, Law S: Conceptualizing and combining evidence for health system guidance. Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; 2005.
• [6]Lavis J: International Dialogue on Evidence-Informed Action. Canada: Program in Policy Decision-making, McMaster University; 2007.
• [7]Harris PJ, Sainsbury P, Kemp LA: The fit between health impact assessment and public policy: Practice meets theory. Soc Sci Med 2014, 108:46-53.
• [8]Harris PJ, Kemp LA, Sainsbury P: The essential elements of health impact assessment and healthy public policy: A qualitative study of practitioner perspectives. BMJ Open 2012, 2:e001245.
• [9]Milio N: Glossary: Healthy public policy. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001, 55:622-623.
• [10]O’Neil M, Pederson AP: Building a methods bridge between policy analysis and healthy public policy. Can J Public Health 1992, 83(Suppl 1):S25-S30.
• [11]Boyko JA, Lavis JN, Dobbins M, Souza NM: Reliability of a tool for measuring theory of planned behaviour constructs for use in evaluating research use in policymaking. Health Res Policy Syst 2011, 9:29. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991, 50(2):179-211.
• [13]Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, Kaner E, Smith L, Bonetti D: Constructing Questionnaires Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Manual for Health Services Researchers. Newcastle: Centre for Health Services Research, University of Newcastle; 2004.
• [14]Chopra M, Munro S, Vist G: Evidence from Systematic Reviews of Effects to Inform Policy-Making about Optimizing the Supply, Improving the Distribution, Increasing the Efficiency and Enhancing the Performance of Health Workers. In A Policy Brief Prepared for the International Dialogue on Evidence-informed Action to Achieve Health Goals in Developing Countries (IDEAHealth) in Khon Kaen. Edited by Lavis JN. Thailand. Geneva: Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research; 2006.
• [15]Lagarde M, Palmer N: Evidence from Systematic Reviews to Inform Decision-Making Regarding Financing Mechanisms That Improve Access to Health Services for Poor People. In A Policy Brief Prepared for the International Dialogue on Evidence-Informed Action to Achieve Health Goals in Developing Countries (IDEAHealth) in Khon Kaen. Edited by Bennett S. Geneva: Alliance for Health Policy and systems Research; 2006.
• [16]Angrist S: Evaluation research: Possibilities and limitations. J Appl Behav Sci 1975, 11(1):75-91.