ArticleImplementation science : IS2017
How do stakeholders from multiple hierarchical levels of a large provincial health system define engagement? A qualitative study.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding implementation of the 'high volume, low complexity' surgical hubs programme in England: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Research Paradigm Mismatch: How Patients and Health Care Professionals Seek Health-Related Information Online.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- Stakeholder identification and prioritization of barriers to One Health implementation in Ghana's zoonotic disease surveillance and response system: a sequential mixed-methods study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Relational work in implementation: a qualitative analysis of intra- and inter- professional strategies leveraged in genomic multidisciplinary teams.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- Participatory systems modelling for youth mental health: agility and adaptiveness to enhance stakeholder engagement and knowledge sharing.International journal of mental health systems · 2025Article
- A scoping review of future research trends and priorities in health systems.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Unveiling the impact of interprofessional education on shaping students' interprofessional identity and collaboration perception: a mixed-method study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Lessons learnt from the implementation of the Covid-19 vaccination programme in the Southwest of England.PloS one · 2024Article
- Community mental health funding, stakeholder engagement and outcomes: a realist synthesis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Mobilizing registry data for quality improvement: A convergent mixed-methods analysis and application to spinal cord injury.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of physical activity policies in elementary schools from the perspective of principals: An application of the consolidated framework for implementation research-A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Using a stakeholder-engaged, iterative, and systematic approach to adapting collaborative decision skills training for implementation in VA psychosocial rehabilitation and recovery centers.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Implementation considerations for delivering inpatient COVID rehabilitation: A qualitative study.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2022Article
- Stakeholder Engagement in Adoption, Implementation, and Sustainment of an Evidence-Based Intervention to Increase Mammography Adherence Among Low-Income Women.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022Article
- Implementation Science: Increasing the Public Health Impact of Audiology Research.American journal of audiology · 2022Review
- Increasing Engagement of Women Veterans in Health Research.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- 'Toothless'-the absence of political priority for oral health: a case study of Ireland 1994-2021.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- CENTER-IT: a novel methodology for adapting multi-level interventions using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research-a case example of a school-supervised asthma intervention.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Fostering the implementation of transitional care innovations for older persons: prioritizing the influencing key factors using a modified Delphi technique.BMC geriatrics · 2022Article
- Establishing an Observatory on Human Resources for Health (HRH) in Iran: A Qualitative Case Study.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEngaging stakeholders from varied organizational levels is essential to successful healthcare quality improvement. However, engagement has been hard to achieve and to measure across diverse stakeholders. Further, current implementation science models provide little clarity about what engagement means, despite its importance. The aim of this study was to understand how stakeholders of healthcare improvement initiatives defined engagement.
methodsParticipants (n = 86) in this qualitative thematic study were purposively sampled for individual interviews. Participants included leaders, core members, frontline clinicians, support personnel, and other stakeholders of Strategic Clinical Networks in Alberta Health Services, a Canadian provincial health system with over 108,000 employees. We used an iterative thematic approach to analyze participants' responses to the question, "How do you define engagement?"
resultsRegardless of their organizational role, participants defined engagement through three interrelated themes. First, engagement was active participation from willing and committed stakeholders, with levels that ranged from information sharing to full decision-making. Second, engagement centered on a shared decision-making process about meaningful change for everyone "around the table," those who are most impacted. Third, engagement was two-way interactions that began early in the change process, where exchanges were respectful and all stakeholders felt heard and understood.
conclusionsThis study highlights the commonalities of how stakeholders in a large healthcare system defined engagement-a shared understanding and terminology-to guide and improve stakeholder engagement. Overall, engagement was an active and committed decision-making about a meaningful problem through respectful interactions and dialog where everyone's voice is considered. Our results may be used in conjunction with current implementation models to provide clarity about what engagement means and how to engage various stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.