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
. 2023 Jan 27;21(1):13.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-00962-2.

An ethical analysis of policy dialogues

Polly Mitchell  1   2   3 , Marge Reinap  4 , Kaelan Moat  5 , Tanja Kuchenmüller  6
Affiliations

An ethical analysis of policy dialogues

Polly Mitchell et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: A policy dialogue is a tool which promotes evidence-informed policy-making. It involves deliberation about a high-priority issue, informed by a synthesis of the best-available evidence, where potential policy interventions are discussed by stakeholders. We offer an ethical analysis of policy dialogues - an argument about how policy dialogues ought to be conceived and executed - to guide those organizing and participating in policy dialogues. Our analysis focuses on the deliberative dialogues themselves, rather than ethical issues in the broader policy context within which they are situated.

Methods: We conduct a philosophical conceptual analysis of policy dialogues, informed by a formal and an interpretative literature review.

Results: We identify the objectives of policy dialogues, and consider the procedural and substantive values that should govern them. As knowledge translation tools, the chief objective of policy dialogues is to ensure that prospective evidence-informed health policies are appropriate for and likely to support evidence-informed decision-making in a particular context. We identify five core characteristics which serve this objective: policy dialogues are (i) focused on a high-priority issue, (ii) evidence-informed, (iii) deliberative, (iv) participatory and (v) action-oriented. In contrast to dominant ethical frameworks for policy-making, we argue that transparency and accountability are not central procedural values for policy dialogues, as they are liable to inhibit the open deliberation that is necessary for successful policy dialogues. Instead, policy dialogues are legitimate insofar as they pursue the objectives and embody the core characteristics identified above. Finally, we argue that good policy dialogues need to actively consider a range of substantive values other than health benefit and equity.

Conclusions: Policy dialogues should recognize the limits of effectiveness as a guiding value for policy-making, and operate with an expansive conception of successful outcomes. We offer a set of questions to support those organizing and participating in policy dialogues.

Keywords: Deliberation; Ethics; Evidence-informed policy; Knowledge translation; Policy dialogue; Procedural values; Public health; Substantive values.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MR and TK were staff members and PM was a consultant at the World Health Organization (WHO) during the research period. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of the WHO.

References

    1. 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(S1):S14. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Mulvale G, Chodos H, Bartram M, MacKinnon MP, Abud M. Engaging civil society through deliberative dialogue to create the first mental health strategy for Canada: changing directions, changing lives. Soc Sci Med. 2014;123:262–268. - PubMed
    1. Bond K, Stiffell R, Ollendorf DA. Principles for deliberative processes in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2020;36(4):445–452. - PubMed
    1. Ciapponi A, Bardach A, Alcaraz A, Belizán M, Jones D, Comolli M, et al. Workshop for priority-setting in Aedes aegypti control interventions in Latin America and the Caribbean: a policy dialogue. Cad Saúde Pública. 2019;35(4):e00092918. - PubMed