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