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
Review
. 2025 May 15;23(1):57.
doi: 10.1186/s12961-025-01341-9.

Stakeholder engagement in healthcare research in India - A systematic review

Remya U Rajendran  1 , Baby S Nayak  2 , N Siva  3 , Tenzin Phagdol  1 , Mamatha Shivananda Pai  1 , Preethy D'Souza  4 , Judith Angelitta Noronha  5
Affiliations
Review

Stakeholder engagement in healthcare research in India - A systematic review

Remya U Rajendran et al. Health Res Policy Syst. .

Abstract

Background: Stakeholder engagement is increasingly crucial in healthcare research, particularly in diverse and complex settings such as India. Stakeholder engagement in health research is about collaborating with key parties such as patients, healthcare providers and policymakers to ensure the research is relevant and impactful by addressing real-world needs, thereby enhancing its quality and effect on healthcare practices.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to summarize the evidence on stakeholder engagement in healthcare research and its influence on research outcomes and healthcare policies in India.

Methods: The evaluation was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, SCOPUS, ProQuest, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL Indian Citation Index and J-Gate, focussing on stakeholder involvement in healthcare settings in hospitals and communities in India. Various research methodologies were employed, with studies not centred on healthcare stakeholder engagement or unrelated sectors being excluded. Tools such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative studies and the mixed methods appraisal tool were used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Data synthesis was carried out using the descriptive/narrative synthesis approach.

Results: We included 25 articles on the basis of our eligibility criteria. These articles comprised reviews, theories of change, quantitative studies, reports, mapping, commentaries, conference proceedings, qualitative studies, experience papers and mixed methods research. The review examined different types and methods of engaging stakeholders in healthcare research projects, evaluated their influence on evidence-based practice, and investigated their relevance to reaching "hard-to-reach" populations. Overcoming financial, time, knowledge and logistical barriers and gaining support from international and governmental bodies can lead to more inclusive research with a significant impact.

Conclusions: Findings suggest that stakeholder engagement contributes to more contextually relevant and ethically grounded research, though challenges related to power dynamics, resource allocation and inclusivity remain prevalent. The review concludes by providing recommendations for enhancing stakeholder engagement practices in future healthcare research in India, emphasizing the need for capacity-building and inclusive frameworks that ensure diverse voices are represented.

Keywords: Approaches; Child health; Engagement; Health equity; Healthcare; India; Mental health; Preventable diseases; Primary health nursing; Public health; Reproductive health; Research; Stakeholder; Universal health coverage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of stakeholder types in selected studies; N = 25
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Framework for stakeholder involvement in enhancing healthcare policy and practices
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Context and process of stakeholder engagement
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, et al. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692–701. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sterling EJ, Betley E, Sigouin A, Gomez A, Toomey A, Cullman G, et al. Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv. 2017;1(209):159–71.
    1. Arwal SH, Aulakh BK, Bumba A, Siddula A. Learning by doing in practice: a roundtable discussion about stakeholder engagement in implementation research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017;15(2):69–73. 10.1186/s12961-017-0275-8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boaz A, Hanney S, Borst R, O’Shea A, Kok M. How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):1–9. 10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chandwani R. Stakeholders in the Indian healthcare sector. Vikalpa The J Decision Makers. 2021;46(2):65–70. 10.1177/02560909211030356.

LinkOut - more resources