Assessing the Quality of an Online Democratic Deliberation on COVID-19 Pandemic Triage Protocols for Access to Critical Care in an Extreme Pandemic Context: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND: Online democratic deliberation (ODD) may foster public engagement in new health strategies by providing opportunities for knowledge exchange between experts, policy makers, and the public. It can favor decision-making by generating new points of view and solutions to existing problems. Deliberation experts recommend gathering feedback from participants to optimize future implementation. However, this online modality has not been frequently evaluated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) assess the quality of an ODD held in Quebec and Ontario, Canada, on the topic of COVID-19 triage protocols for access to critical care in an extreme pandemic context and (2) determine its transformative aspect according to the perceptions of participants. METHODS: We conducted a simultaneous ODD in Quebec and Ontario on May 28 and June 4, 2022, with a diversified target audience not working in the health care system. We used a thematic analysis for the transcripts of the deliberation and the written comments of the participants related to the quality of the process. Participants responded to a postdeliberation questionnaire to assess the quality of the ODD and identify changes in their perspectives on COVID-19 pandemic triage protocols after the deliberation exercise. Descriptive statistics were used. An index was calculated to determine equality of participation. RESULTS: The ODD involved 47 diverse participants from the public (n=20, 43% from Quebec and n=27, 57% from Ontario). Five themes emerged: (1) process appreciation, (2) learning experience, (3) reflecting on the common good, (4) technological aspects, and (5) transformative aspects. A total of 46 participants responded to the questionnaire. Participants considered the quality of the ODD satisfactory in terms of process, information shared, reasoning, and videoconferencing. A total of 4 (80%) of 5 participants reported at least 1 change of perspective on some of the criteria and values discussed. Most participants reported that the online modality was accessible and user-friendly. We found low polarization when calculating equal participation. Improvements identified were measures to replace participants when unable to connect and optimization of time during discussions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the participants perceived the quality of ODD as satisfactory. Some participants self-reported a change of opinion after deliberation. The online modality may be an acceptable alternative for democratic deliberation but with some organizational adaptations.