ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Method for and potential value of reflexive stakeholder mapping of a policy evaluation team: the example of the national evaluation of the NHS Pharmacy First scheme.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPharmacy First (PF) was launched in the National Health Service in England in January 2024, and an evaluation of PF was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The aim of this study was to conduct a reflexive stakeholder analysis of the PF evaluation team and an independent study steering committee (SSC), considering stakeholder positionality and identity.
methodsAll members of the PF evaluation team (including patient and lay members) and the SSC were asked to confirm their affiliations and professional identities potentially relevant to evaluating PF. The data were entered into an online platform for mapping complex systems. Two stakeholder maps were created, showing the connections between both groups and their respective affiliations. Individuals' positions (i.e. opinions) on PF were also recorded.
resultsAll PF evaluation team (n = 32) and SSC (n = 17) members responded. There were 23 and 33 potentially relevant affiliations reported across the PF evaluation team and SSC, respectively. Across both groups, 25 had more than one affiliation, 24 had a formal health professional identity and 8 held a dual role in public service and academia.
conclusionsThis novel method for reflexive stakeholder analysis of a research team and its SSC has demonstrated that participants span multiple sectors and professional affiliations, but that there was initial potential for imbalance in the SSC. As a result, changes were made, such as the inclusion of two more general practitioners in the SSC, and adapting data collection to include the former. Conducting reflexive stakeholder analysis may be worth consideration by other evaluation teams, in similar contexts, evaluating high profile policy schemes.
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.