Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems 2/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

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

Authors: Elizabeth Ekirapa-Kiracho, Upasona Ghosh, Rittika Brahmachari, Ligia Paina

Published in: Health Research Policy and Systems | Special Issue 2/2017

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
3.
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.
4.
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):159–66.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Walt G. Can Interest Groups Influence Government Policy? Health Policy. An Introduction to Health Policy and Power. London: Zed Publications; 1994.
6.
Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. JAIP. 1969;35(4):216–24.
7.
8.
Zukoski A, Luluquisen M. Participatory Evaluation: What is it? Why do it? What are the challenges? Community Based Public Health Policy Pract. 2002;5:1–6.
9.
Douthwaite B, Ashby J. Innovation Histories: An Option for Learning from Experience. Rome: ILAC Brief 5. ILAC, Diversity; 2005.
10.
Schooley J, Morales L. Learning from the community to improve maternal-child health and nutrition: the positive deviance/hearth approach. J Midwifery Wom Heal. 2007;52:376–83.CrossRef
11.
Durham E, Baker H, Smith M, Moore E, Morgan V. The BiodivERSA Stakeholder Engagement Handbook. Paris: BiodivERsA; 2004.
12.
13.
Macaulay AC, Commanda LE, Freeman WL, Gibson N, McCabe ML, Robbins CM, et al. Participatory research maximizes community and lay involvement. BMJ. 1999;319:774–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Rosato M, Laverack G, Grabman LH, Tripathy P, Nair N, Mwansambo C, Azad K, Morrison J, Bhutta Z, Perry H, Rifkin S, Costello A. Community participation: lessons for maternal, newborn, and child health. Lancet. 2008;372:962–71.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Loewenson R, Laurell AC, Hogstedt C, D’Ambrusoso L, Shroff Z. Participatory Action Research in Health Systems: A Methods Reader, First edit. Harare: TARSC, AHPSR, WHO, IDRC Canada, EQUINET Harare; 2014.
16.
Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, Wiley; 2011.
17.
Blanchet K, James P. How to do (or not to do) … a social network analysis in health systems research. Health Policy Plan. 2012;27(5):438–46.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Alvarez S, Douthwaite B, Graham, Ronald Cordoba D, Tehelen. Participatory impact pathways analysis: a practical method for project planning and evaluation. Dev Pract. 2010;20:8.CrossRef
19.
20.
Schiffer E, Hauck J. Net-map: collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods. 2010;22(3):231–49.CrossRef
21.
Fuller J, Hermeston W, Passey M, Fallon T, Muyambi K. Acceptability of participatory social network analysis for problem solving in Australian Aboriginal health service partnerships. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:152.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
23.
Provan K, Veazie M, Staten L, Teufel-Shone N. The use of network analysis to strengthen community partnerships. Public Adm Rev. 2005;65(5):603–13.CrossRef
24.
Kanjilal B, et al. How Healthy are the Children of Indian Sundarbans. The Sundarbans Health Watch Report Series 1. Jaipur: Institute of Health Management Research; 2013. 
25.
Douthwaite B, Alvarez S, Tehelen K, Cordoba D, Thiele G, Mackay R. Participatory impact pathway analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation. In: Fighting poverty through sustainable water use. Proceedings of the CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food 2nd International Forum on Water and Food, Vol. 4, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 10-14 November 2008, eds. R.S. Bayot and E. Humphreys; 31. Colombo, Sri Lanka: CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food.
26.
Douthwaite B, Alvarez S, Thiele G, Mackay R. Participatory impact pathways analysis: A practical method for project planning and evaluation. ILAC Brief No. 17.2008 Maccarese: Institutional Learning and Change Initiative. http://​hdl.​handle.​net/​10568/​70093. Accessed 8 Sept 2016.
27.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics and ICF International Inc. Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Kampala: Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS); 2011.
28.
Kiguli J, Ekirapa-Kiracho E, Okui O, Mtebi A, Macgregor H, Pariyo GW. Increasing access to quality health care for the poor: community perceptions on quality care in Uganda. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2009;3:77–85.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Ssengooba F, Neema S, Mbonye A, Sentubwe O, Onama VF. Maternal Health Review. 2004. Health Systems Development Programme, HSD/WP/04/03 pp. 21–40.
30.
Waiswa P, Kallander K, Peterson S, Tomson G, Pariyo GW. Using the three delays model to understand why newborn babies die in eastern Uganda. Trop Med Int Heal. 2010;15(8):964–72.CrossRef
31.
Kyomuhendo GB. Low use of rural maternity services in Uganda: impact of women’s status, traditional beliefs and limited resources. Reprod Health Matters. 2003;11(21):16–26.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Cross R, Borgatti S, Parker A. Making invisible work visible: using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. Calif Manage Rev. 2002;44(2):25–46.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Engaging stakeholders: lessons from the use of participatory tools for improving maternal and child care health services
Authors
Elizabeth Ekirapa-Kiracho
Upasona Ghosh
Rittika Brahmachari
Ligia Paina
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems / Issue Special Issue 2/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1478-4505
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0271-z

Other articles of this Special Issue 2/2017

Health Research Policy and Systems 2/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Using Theories of Change to inform implementation of health systems research and innovation: experiences of Future Health Systems consortium partners in Bangladesh, India and Uganda

Research

A participatory action research approach to strengthening health managers’ capacity at district level in Eastern Uganda

Research

Participatory monitoring and evaluation approaches that influence decision-making: lessons from a maternal and newborn study in Eastern Uganda

Introduction

Engaging stakeholders in implementation research: lessons from the Future Health Systems Research Programme experience

Commentary

Learning by doing in practice: a roundtable discussion about stakeholder engagement in implementation research

Reseach

Strengthening scaling up through learning from implementation: comparing experiences from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Uganda