Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33158851›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2020

Enhancing the use of stakeholder analysis for policy implementation research: towards a novel framing and operationalised measures.

Marysol Astrea Balane, Benjamin Palafox, Lia M Palileo-Villanueva, Martin McKee, Dina Balabanova

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Mapping the rare disease stakeholders in India.PLOS global public health · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Marysol Astrea BalaneCollege of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines marysol.balane@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7466-5764
Benjamin PalafoxCentre for Global Chronic Conditions, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3775-4415
Lia M Palileo-VillanuevaCollege of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.
Martin McKeeCentre for Global Chronic Conditions, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0121-9683
Dina BalabanovaDepartment of Global Health & Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_16026Wellcome Trust 200346/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicy is shaped and influenced by a diverse set of stakeholders at the global, national and local levels. While stakeholder analysis is a recognised practical tool to assess the positions and engagement of actors relevant to policy, few empirical studies provide details of how complex concepts such as power, interest and position are operationalised and assessed in these types of analyses. This study aims to address this gap by reviewing conceptual approaches underlying stakeholder analyses and by developing a framework that can be applied to policy implementation in low-and-middle income countries.

methodsThe framework was developed through a three-step process: a scoping review, peer review by health policy experts and the conduct of an analysis using key informant interviews and a consensus building exercise. Four characteristics were selected for inclusion: levels of knowledge, interest, power and position of stakeholders related to the policy.

resultThe framework development process highlighted the need to revisit how we assess the power of actors, a key issue in stakeholder analyses, and differentiate an actor's potential power, based on resources, and whether they exercise it, based on the actions they take for or against a policy. Exploration of the intersections between characteristics of actors and their level of knowledge can determine interest, which in turn can affect stakeholder position on a policy, showing the importance of analysing these characteristics together. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches in implementation must also be incorporated in the analysis of policy actors, as there are differences in the type of knowledge, interest and sources of power among national, local and frontline stakeholders.

conclusionThe developed framework contributes to health policy research by offering a practical tool for analysing the characteristics of policy actors and tackling the intricacies of assessing complex concepts embedded in the conduct of stakeholder analyses.

Indexed as

Health PolicyHumansPeer ReviewQualitative Researchhealth policypublic health

Identifiers

PMID33158851
PMCPMC7651378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.