Table 6 Survey responses on the priority setting workshop
How much do you agree or disagree that | Strongly disagree | Disagree | Neither agree nor disagree | Agree | Strongly agree | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Breaking up into small groups, and coming together again was an effective way to agree a Top 10 list of questions for research? | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 31.25% | 68.75% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 11 | ||
The first large group session set the scene and provided information that helped me participate in the workshop | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 50.00% | 50.00% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 | ||
I felt able to talk about my thoughts and opinions in the smaller group sessions | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 12.50% | 87.50% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 14 | ||
In my small group sessions, I was able to keep track of the priority setting process | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 12.50% | 87.50% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 14 | ||
Everyone was encouraged to join in with the discussions equally and had a chance to do that in the small group | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 6.25% | 93.75% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 15 | ||
The final large group session provided an opportunity to review and agree the top 10 priorities for research | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 37.50% | 62.50% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 10 | ||
The workshop facilitators were fair and independent | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 6.25% | 93.75% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 15 | ||
The process of determining the Top 10 was robust and fair | 0.00% | 0.00% | 6.25% | 25.00% | 68.75% | 16 |
0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 11 |