Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40475280›Full record

ArticleCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2024

"Interest-holders": A new term to replace "stakeholders" in the context of health research and policy.

Elie A Akl, Joanne Khabsa, Jennifer Petkovic, Olivia Magwood, Lyubov Lytvyn, Ashley Motilall, Pauline Campbell, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Holger J Schünemann, Vivian Welch and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Leveraging Cultural-Language Translation Apps to Support and Promote Equitable Older Adult Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Elie A AklDepartment of Internal Medicine American University of Beirut Beirut Lebanon.
Joanne KhabsaClinical Research Institute American University of Beirut Medical Center Beirut Lebanon.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4336-3501
Jennifer PetkovicBruyere Research Institute University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5824-584X
Olivia MagwoodBruyere Research Institute University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Lyubov LytvynDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI) McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada.
Ashley MotilallDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (HEI) McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada.
Pauline CampbellDepartment of Nursing and Community Health Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow UK.
Alex Todhunter-BrownDepartment of Nursing and Community Health Glasgow Caledonian University Glasgow UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4941-7985
Holger J SchünemannClinical Epidemiology and Research Center (CERC), Humanitas Research Hospital Humanitas University Milano Italy.
Vivian WelchBruyere Research Institute University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Peter TugwellSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada.
Thomas W ConcannonThe RAND Corporation Santa Monica California USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Given the colonial connotations of the term "stakeholder", its continued use may be perceived as disrespectful to Indigenous Peoples. While several groups have introduced alternative terms, each has its own limitations. The objective of this article is to introduce "interest-holders" as an alternative term to "stakeholders" and describe the discussions underpinning the adoption of the new term by the MuSE Consortium. Methods: The MuSE Consortium is an international network of over 160 individuals with interest and expertise in different aspects relevant to engagement in research. Members of MuSE explored alternative terms and considered their respective merits and limitations. The deliberations considered the literature on the topic and the results of two consultations with the wider MuSE membership on the alternative terms. Results: We define "interest-holders" as groups with legitimate interests in the health issue under consideration. The interests arise and draw their legitimacy from the fact that people from these groups are responsible for or affected by health-related decisions that can be informed by research evidence. Conclusion: As groups other than the MuSE Consortium have started to adopt "interest-holders," we hope its use will reduce confusion related to the multitude of terms used and convey the intended meaning without any negative connotations.

Indexed as

interest‐holderspatient and public involvementstakeholderstaxonomyterminology

Identifiers

PMID40475280
PMCPMC11795957

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.