A 4-Site Public Deliberation Project on the Acceptability of Youth Self-Consent in Biomedical HIV Prevention Trials: Assessment of Facilitator Fidelity to Key Principles.

Abstract

Background: Public deliberation is an approach used to engage persons with diverse perspectives in discussions and decision-making about issues affecting the public that are controversial or value laden. Because experts have identified the need to evaluate facilitator performance, our research team developed a framework to assess the fidelity of facilitator remarks to key principles of public deliberation.

Objective: This report describes how the framework was used to assess facilitator fidelity in a 4-site public deliberation project on the acceptability of minor self-consent in biomedical HIV prevention research.

Methods: A total of 88 individuals participated in 4 deliberation sessions held in 4 cities throughout the United States. The sessions, facilitated by 18 team members, were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Facilitator remarks were highlighted, and predetermined coding rules were used to code the remarks to 1 of 6 principles of quality deliberations. A variety of display tables were used to organize the codes and calculate the number of facilitator remarks that were consistent or inconsistent with each principle during each session across all sites. A content analysis was conducted on the remarks to describe how facilitator remarks aligned or failed to align with each principle.

Results: In total, 735 remarks were coded to one of the principles; 516 (70.2%) were coded as consistent with a principle, and 219 (29.8%) were coded as inconsistent. A total of 185 remarks were coded to the principle of equal participation (n=138, 74.6% as consistent; n=185, 25.4% as inconsistent), 158 were coded to expression of diverse opinions (n=110, 69.6% as consistent; n=48, 30.4% as inconsistent), 27 were coded to respect for others (n=27, 100% as consistent), 24 were coded to adoption of a societal perspective (n=11, 46% as consistent; n=13, 54% as inconsistent), 99 were coded to reasoned justification of ideas (n=81, 82% as consistent; n=18, 18% as inconsistent), and 242 were coded to compromise or movement toward consensus (n=149, 61.6% as consistent; n=93, 38.4% as inconsistent). Therefore, the counts provided affirmation that most of the facilitator remarks were aligned with the principles of deliberation, suggesting good facilitator fidelity. By considering how the remarks aligned or failed to align with the principles, areas where facilitator fidelity can be strengthened were identified. The results indicated that facilitators should focus more on encouraging quieter members to participate, refraining from expressing personal opinions, promoting the adoption of a societal perspective and reasoned justification of opinions, and inviting deliberants to articulate their areas of common ground.

Conclusions: The results provide an example of how a framework for assessing facilitator fidelity was used in a 4-site deliberation project. The framework will be refined to better address issues related to balancing personal and public perspectives, managing plurality, and mitigating social inequalities.