. 2022 Dec;37(16):4047-4053.

doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07411-w. Epub 2022 Feb 7.

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

Roses Parker^#¹, Eve Tomlinson^#^{2

3}, Thomas W Concannon^{4

5}, Elie Akl⁶, Jennifer Petkovic⁷, Vivian A Welch⁷, Sally Crowe⁸, Marisha Palm⁹, Ana Marusic¹⁰, Comfort Ekanem¹¹, Imad Bou Akl⁶, Michael Saginur¹², Lorenzo Moja¹³, Tanja Kuchenmüller¹⁴, Nevilene Slingers¹⁵, Ligia Teixeira¹⁶, Laura Dormer¹⁷, Eddy Lang¹⁸, Thurayya Arayssi¹⁹, Regina Greer-Smith²⁰, Asma Ben Brahem²¹, Marc Avey²², Peter Tugwell²³

Affiliations

¹ Cochrane Pain Palliative and Supportive Care Group, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
² Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers Group, Royal United Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK. eve.tomlinson@bristol.ac.uk.
³ Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. eve.tomlinson@bristol.ac.uk.
⁴ The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, USA.
⁵ Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Boston, USA.
⁶ Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
⁷ Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
⁸ Crowe Associates Ltd, Thame, UK.
⁹ Tufts Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Boston, USA.
¹⁰ Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
¹¹ Department of Clinical Governance, SERVICOM &E-Health, Ministry of Health, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria.
¹² Montfort Hospital, Montfort Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
¹³ Department of Health Products Policy and Standards, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
¹⁴ Research for Health Department, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
¹⁵ South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
¹⁶ Centre for Homelessness Impact, Robertson Trust, ESRC, NIHR, London, UK.
¹⁷ Future Science Group, Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, London, UK.
¹⁸ Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
¹⁹ Weill Cornell Medicine, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar.
²⁰ Healthcare Research Associates, LLC/ST.A.R. Initiative, Mountlake Terrace, USA.
²¹ Instance Nationale de l'Evaluation et de l'Accréditation en Santé (INEAS), Tunis, Tunisia.
²² Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
²³ Dept of Medicine and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

^# Contributed equally.

PMID: 35132560
PMCID: PMC9708980
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-022-07411-w

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

Roses Parker et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2022 Dec.

. 2022 Dec;37(16):4047-4053.

doi: 10.1007/s11606-022-07411-w. Epub 2022 Feb 7.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Cochrane Pain Palliative and Supportive Care Group, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
² Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers Group, Royal United Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK. eve.tomlinson@bristol.ac.uk.
³ Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. eve.tomlinson@bristol.ac.uk.
⁴ The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, USA.
⁵ Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Boston, USA.
⁶ Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
⁷ Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
⁸ Crowe Associates Ltd, Thame, UK.
⁹ Tufts Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Boston, USA.
¹⁰ Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia.
¹¹ Department of Clinical Governance, SERVICOM &E-Health, Ministry of Health, Calabar, Cross River State, Nigeria.
¹² Montfort Hospital, Montfort Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
¹³ Department of Health Products Policy and Standards, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
¹⁴ Research for Health Department, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
¹⁵ South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
¹⁶ Centre for Homelessness Impact, Robertson Trust, ESRC, NIHR, London, UK.
¹⁷ Future Science Group, Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, London, UK.
¹⁸ Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
¹⁹ Weill Cornell Medicine, Ar-Rayyan, Qatar.
²⁰ Healthcare Research Associates, LLC/ST.A.R. Initiative, Mountlake Terrace, USA.
²¹ Instance Nationale de l'Evaluation et de l'Accréditation en Santé (INEAS), Tunis, Tunisia.
²² Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
²³ Dept of Medicine and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.

^# Contributed equally.

PMID: 35132560
PMCID: PMC9708980
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-022-07411-w

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.

Keywords: International health; Patient engagement; Patient-centred outcomes research; Research design; Stakeholder engagement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None exist: AM, ABB, CEE, EL, ET, EA, IB, JP, LD, LT, LM, MA, MP, MS, NS, PT, RGS, RP, SC, TK, TA.

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.

VW — a co-principal investigator on the CIHR grant (PJT-155970) which is funding the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium

ET, RP — worked for Cochrane for the majority of project duration.

Figures

**Figure 1**
Process of individual stakeholder identification and invitation.

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise J-M, Santa J, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985–91. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2037-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
1. Heneghan C, Mahtani KR, Goldacre B, Godlee F, Macdonald H, Jarvies D. Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare. British Medical Journal Publishing Group; 2017. - PubMed
1. PCORI. The Value of Engagement [Internet]. The value of engagement. 2018 [cited 2021 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.pcori.org/engagement/value-engagement
1. Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Matthews R, Minogue V. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e017124. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017124. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
1. Wallerstein NB, Duran B. Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promot Pract. 2006;7(3):312–23. doi: 10.1177/1524839906289376. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

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

Affiliations

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

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Figures

References

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources