Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Dec 28;15(Suppl 2):106.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-017-0271-z.

Engaging stakeholders: lessons from the use of participatory tools for improving maternal and child care health services

Elizabeth Ekirapa-Kiracho  1 , Upasona Ghosh  2 , Rittika Brahmachari  2 , Ligia Paina  3
Affiliations

Engaging stakeholders: lessons from the use of participatory tools for improving maternal and child care health services

Elizabeth Ekirapa-Kiracho et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Effective stakeholder engagement in research and implementation is important for improving the development and implementation of policies and programmes. A varied number of tools have been employed for stakeholder engagement. In this paper, we discuss two participatory methods for engaging with stakeholders - participatory social network analysis (PSNA) and participatory impact pathways analysis (PIPA). Based on our experience, we derive lessons about when and how to apply these tools.

Methods: This paper was informed by a review of project reports and documents in addition to reflection meetings with the researchers who applied the tools. These reports were synthesised and used to make thick descriptions of the applications of the methods while highlighting key lessons.

Results: PSNA and PIPA both allowed a deep understanding of how the system actors are interconnected and how they influence maternal health and maternal healthcare services. The findings from the PSNA provided guidance on how stakeholders of a health system are interconnected and how they can stimulate more positive interaction between the stakeholders by exposing existing gaps. The PIPA meeting enabled the participants to envision how they could expand their networks and resources by mentally thinking about the contributions that they could make to the project. The processes that were considered critical for successful application of the tools and achievement of outcomes included training of facilitators, language used during the facilitation, the number of times the tool is applied, length of the tools, pretesting of the tools, and use of quantitative and qualitative methods.

Conclusions: Whereas both tools allowed the identification of stakeholders and provided a deeper understanding of the type of networks and dynamics within the network, PIPA had a higher potential for promoting collaboration between stakeholders, likely due to allowing interaction between them. Additionally, it was implemented within a participatory action research project. PIPA also allowed participatory evaluation of the project from the perspective of the community. This paper provides lessons about the use of these participatory tools.

Keywords: Engagement; Network analysis; Participatory; Stakeholders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval to conduct this study was sought from the Makerere University School of Public Health Higher Degrees Research and Ethics committee. Consent to participate was sought from all participants in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Conceptual framework
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Network map before MANIFEST (Pallisa, Sept 2014). List of stakeholders: (1) men, (2) women (WMN), (3) transporters (TRS), (4) Saving Groups (SGs), (5) village health teams (VHTs), (6) local council leaders (LCs), (7) religious leaders (RL), (8) health unit management committee (HUMC), (9) chiefs (CHFs), (10) elders (ELD), (11) health workers (HWs), (12) community development officers (CDOs), (13) district local government (DLG), (14) district health team (DHT)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Network map at the end of MANIFEST (Pallisa, Dec 2015). List of stakeholders: (1) men, (2) women (WMN), (3) transporters (TRS), (4) saving groups (SGs), (5) village health teams (VHTs), (6) local council leaders (LCs), (7) religious leaders (RL), (8) health unit management committee (HUMC), (9) chiefs (CHFs), (10) elders (ELD), (11) health workers (HWs), (12) community development officers (CDOs), (13) district local government (DLG), (14) district health team (DHT)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Namazzi G, Kiwanuka S, Bua J, Okui O, Katherine A, et al. Stakeholder analysis for a maternal and newborn health project in Eastern Uganda. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:58. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-58. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z. Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan. 2000;15(3):239–246. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.239. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mallery C, Ganachari D, Fernandez J, Smeeding L, Robinson S, Moon M, Lavallee D, Siegel J. Innovative Methods in Stakeholder Engagement: An Environmental Scan. Prepared by the American Institutes for Research under contract No. HHSA 290 2010 0005 C. AHRQ Publication NO. 12-EHC097-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.
    1. Hyder SS, Puvanachandra P, Bloom G, Sundaram S, Mahmood S, Iqbal M, et al. Stakeholder analysis for health research: case studies from low- and middle-income countries. Public Health. 2010;124(3):159–166. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2009.12.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Walt G. Can Interest Groups Influence Government Policy? Health Policy. An Introduction to Health Policy and Power. London: Zed Publications; 1994.

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources