What is a stakeholder in healthcare

The multitude of different stakeholders in healthcare can represent a real challenge for healthcare organisations to build relationships and support positive outcomes.

Moreover, failing to engage with one or more stakeholder groups may pose a threat to the success of any project.

With change being constant in this industry, it is important to have a proper stakeholder engagement strategy in place to support public and patient involvement, manage expectations and reduce risks.

So what is the best approach to identify and effectively engage with stakeholders in healthcare?

Identifying and mapping stakeholders in healthcare

Start by looking into all your information sources - internal systems, spreadsheets, notes - and collate a list of all the potential stakeholders of your project, research, programme or organisation.

Internal and external stakeholders in the healthcare sector will include many different groups, to name a few:

• Clinicians;
• Patients and family members;
• Healthcare providers;
• Government agencies;
• Pharmaceutical firms;
• Staff;
• Investors;
• Local community;
• NGOs;
• Media;
• Research institutions;
• Charities.

From public health and social care to health promotion and research, in general, all healthcare organisations will have the "4 P's" as their stakeholders: patients, providers, policymakers and payors.

It's important to take the time to be thorough and leverage all your data resources. Consider using social media channels to identify stakeholders, it can be a helpful search tool.

Before getting started with the stakeholder communication plan creation, you must determine the needs and requirements of your stakeholders. They will expect different types of information, communication methods and attention. 

The stakeholder analysis process will provide you with a clear view of the various stakeholders your project impacts and will help you create tailored communication for each stakeholder audience.

To identify the key stakeholders in your project, start with these questions:

• Which stakeholders have a fundamental impact on our project?
• What's the relevance of your relationship with them?
• Who will be responsible or have decision authority on the project?
• What do you want/expect from them?

These will help you classify your stakeholders based on their relative influence and interest in the project.

Then use an interest/influence matrix or the salience model to categorise your stakeholders: 

Both methods are part of the stakeholder mapping process that will enable you to determine the appropriate communication type for each stakeholder group. 

If planning a public consultation, combining this stakeholder analysis with the RACI model will provide the best support for your consultation.

In case you would like to learn more about how to get started with stakeholder mapping (or review it), check our complete stakeholder mapping guide.

Engaging with stakeholders in healthcare

With your stakeholder groups mapped by interest and influence, you will be able to plan specific strategies to engage with them. 

Create a stakeholder engagement plan and map out your communication activities, frequency and tools based on the engagement needs of each stakeholder group.

The healthcare industry is highly impacted by its stakeholders and the interrelationship among them can be quite complex. They can provide research and funding as well as influence strategic direction and public opinion.

That's why stakeholder engagement in healthcare is crucial. By engaging with your different audiences in an effective way you will be able to:

• support projects;
• promote patient involvement;
• shape work programmes and services;
• learn the issues that matter to your stakeholders;
• support key audiences in understanding your work;
• understand potential risks;
• gather insights;
• build positive relationships;
• determine services priorities.

There are numerous engagement activities you can implement to maximise your stakeholder engagement.

Workshops, events, forums, focus groups, surveys, text messages and email newsletters are a few examples to be explored and tested.

Stakeholder engagement is a continuous process, where you must monitor engagement activity and use the valuable feedback and insights to shape your services and support your projects.

Regardless of your programme or project size, from building a new hospital to surveying a small group of people, engaging with your stakeholders will allow you to work on the issues that really matter to the success of your project and to your stakeholders.

The importance of stakeholder data security in healthcare

When it comes to stakeholder information, the healthcare sector is a valuable target for malicious cyber activity as it handles highly sensitive personal data and intellectual property for research. 

Human error and process errors can also have a negative impact on sensitive data, resulting in data breaches and data loss.

Having personal details wrongly shared with strangers not only causes fear and leads to thousands (or even millions) in costs and compensation, but it can damage an organisation's reputation and confidence.

Using multiple platforms or spreadsheets to manage your stakeholder engagement can increase the risk of data errors and the time wasted on repetitive tasks (as well as having to manage logging in and out of several systems).

Selecting a stakeholder engagement solution that meets data privacy requirements and has a high level of data security can prevent serious risks and reassure your stakeholders that their information is being handled with the utmost care.

Deliver a consistent approach to stakeholder engagement in healthcare

Being able to engage with your stakeholders in the right way at the right time is invaluable to supporting the outcomes of any project in Healthcare.

Tractivity is helping many Healthcare organisations such as the NHS Trusts, Clinical Commissioning Groups and Integrated Care Systems to constantly improve their engagement processes and build positive relationships.

Our system can be used as a patient engagement platform, we provide all the communication tools to support your patient engagement strategy and facilitate engagement across different demographic backgrounds.

We're supporting the COVID19 Vaccine Programme, the Health Infrastructure Plan (HIP2 Programme) and other large projects across the NHS landscape.

Download our Supporting the NHS whitepaper and discover why many NHS organisations are choosing Tractivity as their stakeholder engagement and management system.

Contact us to learn more about how we can support your organisation in facilitating communication and improving your stakeholder engagement.

1. WHO. WHO Handbook for Guideline Development – 2nd Edition [Internet]. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2014 [cited 2019 Apr 5]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/m/abstract/Js22083en/

2. Kredo T, Bernhardsson S, Machingaidze S, Young T, Louw Q, Ochodo E, et al. Guide to clinical practice guidelines: the current state of play. Int J Qual Health Care J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2016 Feb;28(1):122–8.

   Article  Google Scholar 

3. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. Clinical practice guidelines we can trust [Internet]. Graham R, Mancher M, Miller Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011 [cited 2019 Apr 5]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209539/

4. Sonnad SS. Organizational tactics for the successful assimilation of medical practice guidelines. Health Care Manage Rev. 1998;23(3):30–7.

   CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

5. Moulding NT, Silagy CA, Weller DP. A framework for effective management of change in clinical practice: dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ Qual Saf. 1999 Sep 1;8(3):177–83.

   CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

6. Gagliardi AR, Brouwers MC. Integrating guideline development and implementation: analysis of guideline development manual instructions for generating implementation advice. Implement Sci IS. 2012 Jul 23;7:67.

   PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

7. Schünemann HJ, Wiercioch W, Etxeandia I, Falavigna M, Santesso N, Mustafa R, et al. Guidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. 2014;186(3):E123–42.

   Article  Google Scholar 

8. Jarret L, Patient Involvement Unit. A report on a study to evaluate patient/carer membership of the first NICE Guideline Development Groups [Internet]. National Institute for Clinical Excellence; 2004 [cited 2019 Apr 24]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/media/default/About/NICE-Communities/Public-involvement/Public-involvement-programme/PIU-GDG-evaluation-report-2004-1.pdf

9. Qaseem A, Forland F, Macbeth F, Ollenschläger G, Phillips S, van der Wees P, et al. Guidelines International Network: toward international standards for clinical practice guidelines. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Apr 3;156(7):525–31.

   PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

10. Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A, Oxman AD, WHO. Advisory Committee on Health Research. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 1. Guidelines for guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006 Nov 21;4:13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

11. Guidelines I of M (US) C on S for DTCP, Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E. Committee on standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines [Internet]. National Academies Press (US); 2011 [cited 2019 Apr 24]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209544/

12. Cluzeau F, Wedzicha JA, Kelson M, Corn J, Kunz R, Walsh J, et al. Stakeholder involvement: how to do it right: article 9 in integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2012 Dec;9(5):269–73.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

13. NHMRC. 2016 NHMRC Standards for Guidelines | NHMRC [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2019 Apr 5]. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/2016-nhmrc-standards-guidelines

14. Gillard S, Simons L, Turner K, Lucock M, Edwards C. Patient and public involvement in the coproduction of knowledge: reflection on the analysis of qualitative data in a mental health study. Qual Health Res. 2012 Aug;22(8):1126–37.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

15. Oliver K, Lorenc T, Innvær S. New directions in evidence-based policy research: a critical analysis of the literature. Health Res Policy Syst. 2014;12:34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

16. Armstrong MJ, Rueda J-D, Gronseth GS, Mullins CD. Framework for enhancing clinical practice guidelines through continuous patient engagement. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2017;20(1):3–10.

    Google Scholar 

17. Carroll C. Qualitative evidence synthesis to improve implementation of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 2017 Jan 16;356:j80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

18. Jackson CL, Greenhalgh T. Co-creation: a new approach to optimising research impact? Med J Aust. 2015 Oct 5;203(7):283–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

19. Ghaffar A, Langlois EV, Rasanathan K, Peterson S, Adedokun L, Tran NT. Strengthening health systems through embedded research. Bull World Health Organ. 2017 01;95(2):87.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

20. Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015 Mar;4(2):133–45.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

21. Armstrong MJ, Bloom JA. Patient involvement in guidelines is poor five years after institute of medicine standards: review of guideline methodologies. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3(1):19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

22. Lavis JN, Paulsen EJ, Oxman AD, Moynihan R. Evidence-informed health policy 2 – Survey of organizations that support the use of research evidence. Implement Sci. 2008;3(1):54.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

23. van de Bovenkamp HM, Zuiderent-Jerak T. An empirical study of patient participation in guideline development: exploring the potential for articulating patient knowledge in evidence-based epistemic settings. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):942–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

24. Suman A, Dikkers MF, Schaafsma FG, van Tulder MW, Anema JR. Effectiveness of multifaceted implementation strategies for the implementation of back and neck pain guidelines in health care: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2016 Sep 20;11(1):126.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

25. Dunston R, Lee A, Boud D, Brodie P, Chiarella M. Co-production and health system reform - from re-imagining to re-making. Aust J Public Adm. 2009;68(1):39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

26. Kumarasamy MA, Sanfilippo FP. Breaking down silos: engaging students to help fix the US health care system. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2015;8:101–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

27. Shi C, Tian J, Wang Q, Petkovic J, Ren D, Yang K, et al. How equity is addressed in clinical practice guidelines: a content analysis. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e005660.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

28. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010 Apr 1;100 Suppl 1:S40-S46.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

29. Selva A, Sanabria AJ, Pequeño S, Zhang Y, Solà I, Pardo-Hernandez H, et al. Incorporating patients’ views in guideline development: a systematic review of guidance documents. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:102–12.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

30. Akl EA, Welch V, Pottie K, Eslava-Schmalbach J, Darzi A, Sola I, et al. GRADE equity guidelines 2: considering health equity in GRADE guideline development: equity extension of the guideline development checklist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;90:68–75.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

31. Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy. Guideline for WHO Guidelines [Internet]. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2003 [cited 2019 Apr 24]. Available from: http://archives.who.int/eml/expcom/expcom14/1other/guid_for_guid.pdf

32. Concannon TW, Meissner P, Grunbaum JA, McElwee N, Guise J-M, Santa J, et al. A new taxonomy for stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(8):985–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

33. Tugwell P, Robinson V, Grimshaw J, Santesso N. Systematic reviews and knowledge translation. Bull World Health Organ. 2006;84(8):643–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

34. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Guide to knowledge translation planning at CIHR: integrated and end-of-grant approaches [Internet]. Ottawa, Ontario; 2012 [cited 2019 May 29]. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt_lm_ktplan-en.pdf, http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt_lm_ktplan-en.pdf

35. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):208.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

36. Hoddinott P, Pollock A, O’Cathain A, Boyer I, Taylor J, MacDonald C, et al. How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research. F1000Research. 2018 Jun 18;7:752.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

37. Oliver SR, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley AR, Gabbay J, et al. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expect Int J Public Particip Health Care Health Policy. 2008;11(1):72–84.

    Google Scholar 

38. Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, et al. Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;18:1355819619841647.

    Google Scholar 

39. Crowe S. “Who inspired my thinking?- Sherry Arnstein.” Res All. 2017;1(1):143-146(4).

40. INVOLVE-National Institute for Health Research. Guidance on co-producing a research project [Internet]. Hampshire, UK; 2018 [cited 2019 Jun 7]. Available from: https://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/guidance-on-co-producing-a-research-project/

41. Markkanen S, Burgess G. Introduction to co-production in research: summary report; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

42. Pohl C, Rist S, Zimmermann A, Fry P, Gurung GS, Schneider F, et al. Researchers’ roles in knowledge co-production: experience from sustainability research in Kenya, Switzerland. Bolivia and Nepal. Sci Public Policy. 2010;37(4):267–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

43. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

44. Concannon TW, Grant S, Welch V, Petkovic J, Selby J, Crowe S, et al. Practical guidance for involving stakeholders in health research. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(3):458–63.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

45. Wilson P, Mathie E, Keenan J, McNeilly E, Goodman C, Howe A, et al. ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study [Internet]. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2015 [cited 2019 Jun 12]. (Health Services and Delivery Research). Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK315999/

46. National Institute for Health Research. National Standards for Public Involvement In Research [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Jun 12]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news-and-events/documents/Public_Involvement_Standards_March%202018_WEB.pdf

47. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:13.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

48. Falzon D, Schünemann HJ, Harausz E, González-Angulo L, Lienhardt C, Jaramillo E, et al. World Health Organization treatment guidelines for drug-resistant tuberculosis, 2016 update. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(3).

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

49. Alonso-Coello P, Oxman AD, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 2: Clinical practice guidelines. BMJ. 2016 Jun 30;353:i2089.

50. Fiocchi A, Pawankar R, Cuello-Garcia C, Ahn K, Al-Hammadi S, Agarwal A, et al. World Allergy Organization-McMaster University guidelines for allergic disease prevention (GLAD-P): probiotics. World Allergy Organ J. 2015;8(1):4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

51. Laine L, Kaltenbach T, Barkun A, McQuaid KR, Subramanian V, Soetikno R, et al. SCENIC international consensus statement on surveillance and management of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):489-501.e26.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

52. Farrell B, Tsang C, Raman-Wilms L, Irving H, Conklin J, Pottie K. What are priorities for deprescribing for elderly patients? Capturing the voice of practitioners: a modified delphi process. PloS One. 2015;10(4):e0122246.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

53. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. How to integrate sex and gender into research [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Jun 11]. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50836.html

54. World Health Organization. Gender mainstreaming for health managers: a practical approach [Internet]. Geneva : World Health Organisation; 2011 [cited 2019 Jun 11]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44516

55. O’Neill J, Tabish H, Welch V, Petticrew M, Pottie K, Clarke M, et al. Applying an equity lens to interventions: using PROGRESS ensures consideration of socially stratifying factors to illuminate inequities in health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jan 1;67(1):56–64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

56. Whitehead M. The concepts and principles of equity and health. Int J Health Serv. 1992;22(3):429–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

57. Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2007. 284 p.

58. Higgins J, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [cited 2019 Apr 5]. Available from: https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/

59. Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Savović j., Page MJ, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, et al. Appraising the risk of bias in randomized trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. In: Cochrane Methods 2016 J Chandler, J McKenzie, I Boutron and V Welch (editors) Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 10 (Suppl 1) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD201601/full

60. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

61. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Casp Checklists. Casp. 2013.

62. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

63. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

64. Jull J, Petticrew M, Kristjansson E, Yoganathan M, Petkovic J, Tugwell P, et al. Engaging knowledge users in development of the CONSORT-Equity 2017 reporting guideline: a qualitative study using in-depth interviews. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:34.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

65. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Iorio A, et al. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:4–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

Page 2

Skip to main content

From: Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation