Skip to main content

Table 1 Comparison of sites of power described by interviewees relative to those described in the literature

From: Developing a toolkit for engagement practice: sharing power with communities in priority-setting for global health research projects

Component of engagement

Sites of power-sharing identified by interviewees

Sites of power-sharing identified by both

Sites of power-sharing identified in the literature

PROCESS-During global health research priority-setting

Ground rules

The rules under which health research priority-setting is undertaken. They specify who can and cannot be present, who can speak and when, how different individuals’ views are used, and how a decision or closure is reached.

Leadership

Who takes the lead on key aspects of research priority-setting: planning, implementing, and ensuring outputs are fed back and used.

Goal of engagement

The reason(s) for engaging community members in global health research priority-setting. Can be instrumental (i.e. as a means to another goal) and/or transformative (i.e. to generate empowerment).

 

Transparency

Whether there is openness and honesty about any constraints surrounding the priority-setting process, the ground rules for priority-setting, and what happens after priority-setting.

Framing

What issues can be brought into the priority-setting space and what issues are not allowed; What information is presented or shared with participants at the start of the priority-setting process.

Range

Whether community participants span a wide spectrum of relevant roles and demographics. Relevant roles could be: patients, families and carers, providers, purchasers, payers, policymakers, and product makers. Ensuring the presence of marginalised groups is also key to achieving range.

 

Space

The physical setting in which health research priority-setting is undertaken.

Stage of participation

When community members are allowed to participate in the health research priority-setting process.

 
 

Respect

Whether interpersonal and cultural respect are shown for community participants.

Level of participation

The mode(s) of participation assumed by community participants during health research priority-setting.

 
 

Community assets

Features of a community or a community organisation partner that can be drawn upon to support the representation and voices of its members, esp. those considered marginalised, during health research priority-setting.

Representation

Whether community members are represented during health research priority-setting. Encompasses considerations related to the channel of representation and the genuineness of representation.

 
  

Having voice

Whether community participants are able to speak and be heard during health research priority-setting. Encompasses considerations related to facilitation, documentation, and synthesis of global health research priorities.

 
  

Mass

The numbers of participants representing powerful versus less powerful community members.

 

AFTERMATH-After global health research priority-setting

Accountability

Responsibilities of researchers, research institutions, and community members after priority-setting.