Table 4 Data sources

RO.1 To analyze how members of the public, in face-to-face and online environments, reason and deliberate around the desirability of sociotechnical changes in three thematic areas.

Processes:

Ways in which participants reason, agree/disagree, and ponder the desirability of sociotechnical changes within/across thematic areas.

√

√

√

The influence of group deliberations over the formation of one’s judgments (including the group moderator).

√

√

√

Outcomes:

Similarities/differences within/across thematic areas in participants’ knowledge claims, normative assumptions and argumentative patterns.

√

√

Similarities/differences between the two deliberative environments in how views are articulated and shared.

√

√

RO.2 To identify usability and ethical issues raised by various design assumptions and features in three areas

Outcomes (to be interpreted in light of the scholarly literature):

Usability and ethical issues that are addressed/ignored by participants within/across thematic areas.

√

Design assumptions and features considered desirable/undesirable, that predominate, are reframed or ignored by participants.

√

RO.3 To assess whether the sociotechnical scenario method fosters critical, reflective and creative deliberations around the design of health innovations

Processes:

Appraisal of the audiovisual and written components of each scenario.

√

√

√

Participants’ level of engagement throughout the process and ability to relate to the protagonists’ and other participants’ stories.

√

√

√

Expressions of creativity, reflexivity and critical sharing of information.

√

√

√

Outcomes:

Ways in which participants envision and describe the value of sociotechnical developments in healthcare.

√

√

Critical observations toward design assumptions and features, and scope/depth of proposed alternatives (participants’ own conclusions).

√

√