Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep;7(3):486-491.
doi: 10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z.

The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation

Melody S Goodman  1 , Vetta L Sanders Thompson  2
Affiliations
Free PMC article

The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation

Melody S Goodman et al. Transl Behav Med. 2017 Sep.
Free PMC article

Abstract

In this commentary, we discuss the science of stakeholder engagement in research. We propose a classification system with definitions to determine where projects lie on the stakeholder engagement continuum. We discuss the key elements of implementation and evaluation of stakeholder engagement in research posing key questions to consider when doing this work. We commend and critique the work of Hamilton et al. in their multilevel stakeholder engagement in a VA implementation trial of evidence-based quality improvement in women's health primary care. We also discuss the need for more work in this area to enhance the science of stakeholder engagement in research.

Keywords: Community engagement; Evaluation; Implementation science; Stakeholder-engaged research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

The stakeholder engagement classification work is supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award (ME-1511-33027). All statements in this report, including its findings and conclusions, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Categories and classifications of stakeholder engagement. Stakeholder engagement is grouped into three broad categories: non-participation, symbolic participation, and engaged participation. Each of the broad categories is classified into subgroups. Subgroups in non-participation include outreach and education. Subgroups in symbolic participation include coordination and cooperation. Subgroups in engaged participation include collaboration, patient-centered, and community-based participatory research (CBPR)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Eccles MP, Mittman BS. Welcome to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2006; 1(1). doi:10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.
    1. Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE. A practical, robust implementation for integrating research findings into practice. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2008;34(4):228–243. doi: 10.1016/S1553-7250(08)34030-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE, McGlynn E, … Grol R. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012; 7(1), 50. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zerhouni, E. A. Translational and clinical science—time for a new vision. New England Journal of Medicine, 2005; 353(15), 1621–1623. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb053723. - PubMed
    1. Wilkins CH, Spofford M, Williams N, Mckeever C, Allen S, Brown J, … Strelnick AH. Community representatives’ involvement in clinical and translational science awardee activities. Clin Transl Sci. 2013; 6(4), 292–296. doi:10.1111/cts.12072. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms