Abstract
Background
Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification.
Objective
We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams.
Design
Consensus development.
Participants
We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators.
Approach
We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors.
Key Results
We present seven highly desirable factors: ‘expertise or experience’, ‘ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group’, ‘inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)’, ‘communication skills’, ‘commitment and time capacity’, ‘financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest’, ‘training support and funding needs’. Additionally, three factors are desirable: ‘influence’, ‘research relevant values’, ‘previous stakeholder engagement’.
Conclusions
We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.
Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification.
Objective
We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams.
Design
Consensus development.
Participants
We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators.
Approach
We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors.
Key Results
We present seven highly desirable factors: ‘expertise or experience’, ‘ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group’, ‘inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)’, ‘communication skills’, ‘commitment and time capacity’, ‘financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest’, ‘training support and funding needs’. Additionally, three factors are desirable: ‘influence’, ‘research relevant values’, ‘previous stakeholder engagement’.
Conclusions
We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 4047-4053 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of General Internal Medicine |
| Volume | 37 |
| Issue number | 16 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 7 Feb 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:TC — recipient of grants or contracts from: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/NIOSH; National Institutes of Health/NCATS;Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; National Evaluation System for health Technology; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. 100 shares of Moderna, Inc.
Funding Information:
This project received no specific funding. Lead authors, RP and ET, were employees of Cochrane at the time of conducting this work. The MuSE Consortium is recipient of CIHR grant (PJT-155970). No payment has been received by a pharmaceutical company or other agency to write this article. All authors had full access to the full data in the study and accept responsibility to submit for publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
Keywords
- Stakeholder engagement
- Patient engagement
- Patient-centred outcomes research
- Research design
- International health