Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

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.

Potential barriers to and facilitators of civil society organization engagement in increasing immunization coverage in Odukpani Local Government Area of Cross River State, Nigeria: an implementation research.

BACKGROUND: Civil society organizations (CSOs) are important in health care delivery. They have the potential to play significant roles in immunization-related services, such as advocacy, health education, demand creation and resource mobilization. Their roles are often indispensable, diverse and beneficial in reducing infant morbidity and mortality due to vaccine-preventable diseases. This study explored the potential barriers to and facilitators of CSO engagement in increasing immunization coverage in Odukpani Local Government Area of Cross River State, Nigeria. METHODS: The study adopted qualitative data collection methods. Twenty-two focus group discussion (FGD) sessions, three in-depth interviews (IDIs) and 26 key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted. Appropriate guides (FGD guide, IDI guide and KII guide) were used to conduct face-to-face interviews and the discussions. The FGDs, KIIs and IDIs were audio-recorded and transcribed. A framework analysis approach involving five key stages of analysis (familiarization with data, identification of thematic framework, indexing, charting, mapping/interpretation) was used for data analyses and presentation. RESULTS: CSOs encounter barriers in the course of their immunization advocacy, communication and social mobilization due to male child preference, leading to shielding of male children and not allowing them to be given immunization, as well as patriarchy, safety concerns, religious concerns, anti-vaccine misinformation and rumours, low perception of effectiveness and efficacy of vaccines, inaccessibility of localities, low health literacy and superstitious beliefs. Various community structures, such as the institution of the village head, elders' council and town crier (announcer), and the existence of change agents, act as facilitators of immunization advocacy and uptake. Factors such as traditional control mechanisms including masquerades and religion act as either barriers or facilitators depending on the community and the mode of deployment. CSO members are willing to overcome these barriers and leverage the facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: For successful engagement in immunization-related services, there are barriers in the study area that CSOs should overcome, such as male child preference and geographic inaccessibility, as well as facilitators that they should leverage such as traditional information dissemination systems and enforcement of compliance by the chiefs and elders' council.

Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines.

Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

A group of international researchers, patient partners, and other stakeholders are working together to create a checklist for when and how to involve stakeholders in health guideline development. Health guidelines include clinical practice guidelines, which your healthcare provider uses to determine treatments for health conditions. While working on this checklist, the team identified key issues to work on, including: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. This paper describes each issue and how the team plans to produce guidance papers to address them.