A framework for stakeholder identification in concept mapping and health research: a novel process and its application to older adult mobility and the built environment

BMC Public Health

Maureen C Ashe²  Heather M Hanson²  Meghan Winters¹  Claire Schiller¹ 

[1] Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University (SFU), Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada;Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada

关键词: Health;    Built environment;    Older adults’ mobility;    Concept mapping;    Stakeholders;   

Others  :  1162253
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-428

 received in 2012-10-23, accepted in 2013-04-29,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Stakeholders, as originally defined in theory, are groups or individual who can affect or are affected by an issue. Stakeholders are an important source of information in health research, providing critical perspectives and new insights on the complex determinants of health. The intersection of built and social environments with older adult mobility is an area of research that is fundamentally interdisciplinary and would benefit from a better understanding of stakeholder perspectives. Although a rich body of literature surrounds stakeholder theory, a systematic process for identifying health stakeholders in practice does not exist. This paper presents a framework of stakeholders related to older adult mobility and the built environment, and further outlines a process for systematically identifying stakeholders that can be applied in other health contexts, with a particular emphasis on concept mapping research.

Methods

Informed by gaps in the relevant literature we developed a framework for identifying and categorizing health stakeholders. The framework was created through a novel iterative process of stakeholder identification and categorization. The development entailed a literature search to identify stakeholder categories, representation of identified stakeholders in a visual chart, and correspondence with expert informants to obtain practice-based insight.

Results

The three-step, iterative creation process progressed from identifying stakeholder categories, to identifying specific stakeholder groups and soliciting feedback from expert informants. The result was a stakeholder framework comprised of seven categories with detailed sub-groups. The main categories of stakeholders were, (1) the Public, (2) Policy makers and governments, (3) Research community, (4) Practitioners and professionals, (5) Health and social service providers, (6) Civil society organizations, and (7) Private business.

Conclusions

Stakeholders related to older adult mobility and the built environment span many disciplines and realms of practice. Researchers studying this issue may use the detailed stakeholder framework process we present to identify participants for future projects. Health researchers pursuing stakeholder-based projects in other contexts are encouraged to incorporate this process of stakeholder identification and categorization to ensure systematic consideration of relevant perspectives in their work.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Schiller et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Boote J, Telford R, Cooper C: Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda. Health Policy 2002, 61(2):213-236.
• [2]Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB: Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Ann Rev Publ Health 1998, 19(1):173-202.
• [3]Trickett EJ, Beehler S, Deutsch C, Green LW, Hawe P, Mcleroy K, Miller RL, Rapkin BD, Schensul JJ, Schulz AJ: Advancing the science of community-level interventions. Am J Publ Health 2011, 101(8):1410-1419.
• [4]Canada. Canadian Institutes of Health Research: Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approache. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2012. (Cat. No. MR4-11/2012E-PDF). http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt_lm_ktplan-en.pdf webcite
• [5]Burke JG, O’Campo P, Peak GL, Gielen AC, Mcdonnell KA, Trochim WMK: An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research method. Qual Health Res 2005, 15(10):1392-1410.
• [6]Trochim W: An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Eval Progr Plann 1989, 12(1):1-16.
• [7]Kane M, Trochim WMK: An introduction to concept mapping. Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2007.
• [8]Rosas SR, Kane M: Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: a pooled study analysis. Eval Program Plann 2012, 35(2):236-245.
• [9]Jepsen AL, Eskerod P: Stakeholder analysis in projects: challenges in using current guidelines in the real world. Int J Proj Manag 2009, 27(4):335-343.
• [10]Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z: Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Pol Plann 2000, 15(3):239-246.
• [11]Hanson HM, Schiller C, Sims-Gould J, Clarke PJ, Curran E, Donaldson MG, Hamilton L, Pitman B, Scott V, Winters M, Mckay HA, Ashe MC: Concept mapping –engaging stakeholders to unravel the role of the built and social environments on older adults’ mobility [abstract]. Can Assoc On Gerontology Annual General Meeting 2012, 42(S43):201.
• [12]Hanson HM, Ashe M, Mckay HA, Winters M: Intersection between the built and social environments and older Adult's mobility: an evidence review. 2012. [National Collaborating Centre For Environmental Health] http://www.ncceh.ca/sites/default/files/Built_and_Social_Environments_Older_Adults_Nov_2012.pdf webcite
• [13]Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE: How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med 2002, 23(2, Supplement 1):64-73.
• [14]Mcneill LH, Kreuter MW, Subramanian SV: Social environment and physical activity: a review of concepts and evidence. Soc Sci Med 2006, 63(4):1011-1022.
• [15]Brennan LK, Brownson RC, Kelly C, Ivey MK, Leviton LC: Concept mapping: priority community strategies to create changes to support active living. Am J Prev Med 2012, 43(5, Supplement 4):S337-S350.
• [16]Reis RS, Kelly CM, Parra DC, Barros M, Gomes G, Malta D, Schmid T, Brownson RC: Developing a research agenda for promoting physical activity in Brazil through environmental and policy change. Revista Panamericana De Salud Pública 2012, 32(2):93-100.
• [17]Brownson RC, Kelly CM, Eyler AA, Carnoske C, Grost L, Handy SL, Maddock JE, Pluto D, Ritacco BA, Sallis JF: Environmental and policy approaches for promoting physical activity in the United States: a research agenda. J Phys Act Health 2008, 5(4):488-503.
• [18]Friedman AL, Miles S: Stakeholders: theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
• [19]Freeman RE: Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston, Ma: Pitman; 1984.
• [20]Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC: Who's In and Why? a typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage 2009, 90(5):1933-1949.
• [21]Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R: A stakeholder analysis. Health Pol Plann 2000, 15(3):338-345.
• [22]Manafò E, Petermann L, Lobb R, Keen D, Kerner J: Research, practice, and policy partnerships in Pan-Canadian coalitions for cancer and chronic disease prevention. J Publ Health Manag Pract 2011, 17(6):E1-E1.
• [23]Trochim W, Kane M: Concept mapping: an introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. Int J Qual Health Care 2005, 17(3):187-191.
• [24]Hyder A, Syed S, Puvanachandra P, Bloom G, Sundaram S, Mahmood S, Iqbal M, Hongwen Z, Ravichandran N, Oladepo O: Stakeholder analysis for health research: case studies from low- and middle-income countries. Public Health 2010, 124(3):159-166.
• [25]Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: Coalitions Linking Action and Science for Prevention (CLASP) Phase I Report. Toronto: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; 2009.
• [26]Gallagher E, Scott V: Taking S.T.E.P.S. ; Modifying Pedestrian Environments To Reduce The Risk Of Missteps And Falls. Canada: University Of Victoria School Of Nursing; 1995.