Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39972500›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025

Making intersectoral stakeholder engagement in medicine quality research work: lessons from the STARmeds study in Indonesia.

Amalia Hasnida, Roland Bal, Reise Manninda, Stanley Saputra, Yunita Nugrahani, Faradiba Faradiba, Maarten Olivier Kok

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Amalia HasnidaDepartment of Health Care Governance, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. hasnida@eshpm.eur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9264-334X
Roland BalDepartment of Health Care Governance, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7202-5053
Reise MannindaFaculty of Pharmacy, Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5861-9430
Stanley SaputraFaculty of Pharmacy, Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5969-0183
Yunita NugrahaniFaculty of Pharmacy, Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-2557-6758
Faradiba FaradibaFaculty of Pharmacy, Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4066-7841
Maarten Olivier KokDepartment of Health Care Governance, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8957-1253

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR131145
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTackling falsified and substandard medicines requires intersectoral collaboration, impact-oriented research and the effective application of research findings. However, the best way to organize research and involve stakeholders from different sectors to ensure that results are used, remains unclear. We aimed to assess how intersectoral stakeholder engagement in research on medicine quality in Indonesia evolved, influenced the research processes and participants, and affected the uptake of the results.

methodsFor this prospective case study, we adopted an abductive approach inspired by contribution mapping and collaborative governance. We conducted 37 interviews with key informants, observed 24 meetings and analysed 121 documents to systematically map the engagement of stakeholders in a study on medicine quality, focusing on processes, influences and research-related contributions.

resultsFrom the outset, it proved feasible, but challenging, to effectively engage stakeholders in research into falsified and substandard medicines in Indonesia. After a cautious start and persistent efforts, stakeholders, such as the national medicine regulatory authority, became increasingly involved and developed a shared understanding of the need for intersectoral collaboration to tackle problems with medicine quality. While the research findings did not lead to a different estimate of the magnitude of the problem, the involvement of stakeholders was beneficial. After formalizing the collaboration, stakeholders provided data needed to study potential risk factors, product varieties and sales volumes, and contributed to decisions during the research and interpretation of the findings. Owing to frequent personnel changes and diverging priorities, stakeholder engagement required more effort than anticipated, and necessitated a strategic and adaptive approach. This approach had to account for the varying priorities and interests of stakeholders, the evolving framing of the problem, the implications of the findings and the nature of the field, where regulators must operate cautiously, balance interests and respond to critical incidents.

conclusionsIntersectoral stakeholder engagement in medicine quality research is challenging but beneficial. Engagement contributed to building trust and relationships between researchers and stakeholders, helped forge an intersectoral network focused on medicine quality, exposed the medicine regulator to new methods, inspired stakeholders to take on new roles and make better use of existing data and furthered a research-policy partnership forum on pharmaceutical topics.

Indexed as

Intersectoral CollaborationStakeholder ParticipationCooperative BehaviorHumansIndonesiaPharmaceutical PreparationsProspective StudiesPharmaceutical PreparationsCollaborative governanceFalsified medicineIndonesiaIntersectoralKnowledge translationMedicine qualityStakeholder engagementSubstandard drug

Identifiers

PMID39972500
PMCPMC11840975

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.