Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 May;9(4):122-31.

Deliberative dialogues as a strategy for system-level knowledge translation and exchange

Jennifer A Boyko  1 , John N Lavis  2 , Maureen Dobbins  3
Affiliations

Deliberative dialogues as a strategy for system-level knowledge translation and exchange

Jennifer A Boyko et al. Healthc Policy. 2014 May.

Abstract
in English, French

We undertook a case study in order to explore deliberative dialogue as a system-level knowledge translation and exchange (KTE) strategy and to describe the design features and intended effects of this dialogue. Our data included observations made during the dialogue, evaluations completed by dialogue participants and interviews. We placed these data in the context of our broader experience. We learned that (a) all the design elements we examined could be maintained in future dialogues, but organizers of dialogues that address similar issues and take place in similar contexts should consider the relative importance of these features and (b) the intended effects of a deliberative dialogue that addresses a low-priority policy issue are mainly apparent at the individual level among dialogue participants. Further research is required to explore the key features and intended effects of deliberative dialogues used to address other issues or in different contexts.

Nous avons mené une étude de cas pour étudier le dialogue délibératif comme stratégie d'échange et de transfert de connaissances (ETC) au niveau du système et pour décrire les caractéristiques conceptuelles ainsi que les effets visés par ce type de dialogue. Nos données comprennent des observations notées au cours du dialogue, des évaluations faites par les participants et des entrevues. Nous avons situé ces données dans le contexte d'une expérience plus vaste. Nous avons appris que (a) tous les éléments conceptuels examinés peuvent se maintenir dans d'éventuels dialogues, mais les organisateurs de dialogues qui se penchent sur des enjeux semblables et qui ont lieu dans des contextes similaires doivent tenir compte de l'importance relative de ces caractéristiques et que (b) les effets visés par un dialogue délibératif qui porte sur des enjeux politiques de faible priorité apparaissent principalement au niveau personnel parmi les participants au dialogue. Il faut effectuer davantage de recherches pour explorer les principales caractéristiques et les effets visés par un dialogue délibératif utilisé pour aborder d'autres enjeux ou dans des contextes différents.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Boyko J.A., Lavis J.N., Abelson J., Dobbins M., Carter N. 2012. “Deliberative Dialogues as a Mechanism for Knowledge Translation and Exchange in Health Systems Decision-Making.” Social Science and Medicine 75(11): 1938–45. - PubMed
    1. Boyko J.A., Lavis J.N., Dobbins M., Souza N.M. 2011. “Reliability of a Tool for Measuring Theory of Planned Behaviour Constructs for Use in Evaluating Research Use in Policymaking.” Health Research Policy and Systems 9(1): 29. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF). 2006. “Weighing Up the Evidence: Making Evidence-informed Guidance Accurate, Achievable, and Acceptable.” Ottawa, ON: Author.
    1. Culyer A.J., Lomas J. 2006. “Deliberative Process and Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Health Care: Do They Work and How Might We Know?” Evidence and Policy 12(31): 357–71.
    1. Dryzek J. 2009. “The Australian Citizens' Parliament: A World First.” Journal of Public Deliberation 5(1): 9.

Publication types

MeSH terms