↓ Skip to main content

Engaging stakeholders: lessons from the use of participatory tools for improving maternal and child care health services

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
176 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Engaging stakeholders: lessons from the use of participatory tools for improving maternal and child care health services
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12961-017-0271-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Ekirapa-Kiracho, Upasona Ghosh, Rittika Brahmachari, Ligia Paina

Abstract

Effective stakeholder engagement in research and implementation is important for improving the development and implementation of policies and programmes. A varied number of tools have been employed for stakeholder engagement. In this paper, we discuss two participatory methods for engaging with stakeholders - participatory social network analysis (PSNA) and participatory impact pathways analysis (PIPA). Based on our experience, we derive lessons about when and how to apply these tools. This paper was informed by a review of project reports and documents in addition to reflection meetings with the researchers who applied the tools. These reports were synthesised and used to make thick descriptions of the applications of the methods while highlighting key lessons. PSNA and PIPA both allowed a deep understanding of how the system actors are interconnected and how they influence maternal health and maternal healthcare services. The findings from the PSNA provided guidance on how stakeholders of a health system are interconnected and how they can stimulate more positive interaction between the stakeholders by exposing existing gaps. The PIPA meeting enabled the participants to envision how they could expand their networks and resources by mentally thinking about the contributions that they could make to the project. The processes that were considered critical for successful application of the tools and achievement of outcomes included training of facilitators, language used during the facilitation, the number of times the tool is applied, length of the tools, pretesting of the tools, and use of quantitative and qualitative methods. Whereas both tools allowed the identification of stakeholders and provided a deeper understanding of the type of networks and dynamics within the network, PIPA had a higher potential for promoting collaboration between stakeholders, likely due to allowing interaction between them. Additionally, it was implemented within a participatory action research project. PIPA also allowed participatory evaluation of the project from the perspective of the community. This paper provides lessons about the use of these participatory tools.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 40 23%
Unknown 48 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 19%
Social Sciences 27 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 8%
Psychology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 61 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,304,537
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#748
of 1,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,335
of 441,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#20
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,226 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.