Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I am still working with my colleagues for input on our action plan/stakeholder engagement plan. A big question mark for this is some management changes that make formalizing plans a bit challenging during this transition. While I am not in a research setting, I expect that this is a very similar challenge that other learners in this course face–whether it is shifts in management, priorities, or funding (or all of the above). The approach I am taking (with other colleagues) is to lay out our suggestions and outline for a plan so that we are prepared and ready to discuss this with our leadership team. One key challenge we have identified centers on communication and outreach–strategies that keep partners and stakeholder engaged in the long-term. Refining our communication strategy is one of the key focus areas for this transition period, and I am personally working to ensure this incorporates stakeholder engagement strategies that I have learned about in this course.
I wouldn’t say this so much changed, but rather reinforced my thinking/understanding of GPP and the fact that GPP approaches have a role and are extremely valuable even outside of the research/trial context. It did surprise me a bit in the course of the training that many of the questions that flagged for me are things that I have already been in process of thinking through with colleagues–now it is just a question of putting together an actionable plan to better incorporate stakeholder engagement into the core principles of our organization and its operations.
Sustained relationships over time with communities you are doing work with/in is important to establishing credibility and trust–this is important in garnering community support for the work and research being done. Communication and continued engagement of the community helps to sustain relationships and reinforce the established trust in the time between research/trials.
Sustaining relationships with stakeholders (both organizations and stakeholder groups) is something my organization has struggled with–to date, most of our approach to engagement has been one-off and project specific which is a problem when it comes time to start a new project/program–since oftentimes the same stakeholders need to be re-engaged. To address, we are thinking through our approach to stakeholder engagement as a whole for the organization and working to put a formal plan on paper to serve as our standard approach that will be incorporated more systematically to our work. This will include better implementation of evaluation to gauge current/past successes as well as weaknesses and areas that we need to improve upon, particularly in terms of garnering stakeholder input and involvement in our work.
Most recently, in starting up a new program, we used surveys to garner input from our stakeholders for an initial needs assessment to inform our program development. While we started with a concept–building a new training program from patients and advocates–we decided that we would use a needs assessment survey with input from our stakeholder to set priorities for the topics covered in the training. This way, we can ensure that the course an materials we are building are relevant and directly applicable to current stakeholder needs. From this input, it became clear that we needed to further refine our target audience for this training– patients and patient advocates are not always one in the same, and this distinction would likely influence the specific focus and priorities of course leaning objectives. We are planning to hold a broader stakeholder meeting to discuss this issue and to clarify objectives and audiences later this month.
2- I am not in a research or trial site setting, but my organization is currently in process of some shifts in management and restructuring of priorities. So, related to the given scenario/question– sometimes staff often face priorities set by upper management and program concepts handed to us to implement. It is a challenge to then work backwards to think about how to incorporate stakeholder engagement with a plan that is already outlined. Therefore, a core focus of my work in the next couple months will be working with colleagues to outline a formal stakeholder engagement plan to use for our organization– having this in place as a standard procedure or framework for our approach will help to ensure that GPP and stakeholder involvement is integral to all of our work.
Managing stakeholder engagement and multiple partnerships is definitely difficult, but it is also critical to the success of much (if not all) of the work I am involved in with my organization. My colleagues and I work to do extensive stakeholder mapping at the beginning of any new project/initiative and work to outline which different roles (e.g., partners, collaborators, advisers, working group members) for stakeholders. Those we identify as potential partners or collaborators include other groups with parallel efforts and/or missions–this allows sharing and pooling of resources and expertise. Those we identify as advisers include prominent individuals with influence in the various stakeholder groups they represent–this helps to ensure the needs of different stakeholders is reflected in our work, and also helps with communicating progress/results from our work back to those stakeholder communities. Early engagement is key to ensuring sustained “buy-in” and prolonged partnerships–stakeholders are more likely to be committed to an effort when they have played an active role in helping to shape a project/program, and as such would be more invested in the long run to success of the effort.
<span style=”line-height: 1.5em;”>Formative research and community engagement for a trial are intrinsically linked. Formative research helps to lay the groundwork for effective communication with community stakeholders. Formative research is a critical step that includes identifying key stakeholders and thinking through the role that different stakeholders can/will play in supporting trial work. Stakeholder mapping work done in the formative research stage can greatly facilitate implementation of a stakeholder communication plan during the trial.</span>
With my organization, stakeholder identification is a key formative research step. Stakeholder mapping exercises are crucial to overcoming this initial challenge. Without this, it would be easy to start down the road of getting feedback and input from stakeholders and stakeholder groups we are already familiar with. However, often, some of the most valuable insight is gained from stakeholders outside of the “usual suspects” that we know, or have already worked with in the past.
Other formative research activities we have utilized includes stakeholder surveys (e.g., needs assessments) and stakeholder meetings. Both of these help us to bring diverse stakeholder perspectives (e.g., patients/advocates, industry, academia, government) to the table so we can work to align the needs of all as we develop a new work initiative/project. This formative research step is a critical component to the work because it helps to ensure that all stakeholder views/voices are reflected in the project we develop.
In the past, community stakeholders have been asked to provide input on survey questions before finalizing and disseminating more broadly. In the future, I see the role and opportunity for input of community stakeholders growing, especially as we develop project with more of a focus on patient engagement. For example, we are developing a new patient and advocate training program, and we expect community stakeholder input received during stakeholder meetings to directly inform the topics and format for the program.
While I do not work on a research site, I feel the majority of my colleagues here at the Reagan-Udall Foundation do understand the value of stakeholder engagement. As a smaller (~8 full time staff), and relatively young organization, we have spent a lot of time working to articulate our core principles and goals of the organization. One of these is to ensure broad stakeholder participation in all of our projects and programs—this way, we can work to ensure that diverse perspectives and expertise is brought in to support and enhance all of our work. Another thing we have started doing at the outset of new initiatives, is informal interviews with stakeholders to assess needs, concerns, and issues for a given topic (comparable to the formative research stage in GPP). In this way, we can work to align stakeholder needs at the start of a new initiative and ensure the new work effort focuses on common challenges and goals.
Module 2 was very useful in getting me to think about better distinguishing goals vs objectives vs activities in my work. Sometime I think the line between goals and objectives can be a bit blurred, and I felt this module provided a good thought exercise to more clearly articulate these messages.
–Describe a benefit that you have experienced of conducting stakeholder engagement. For your example, list a measurable indicator or metric of success.
I’ll share a hopeful benefit from stakeholder engagement I am currently in process of conducting. Note: I do not work in the research/clinical research setting, however, I am finding more and more that GPP is a way of thought that can be applied broadly to other aspects of work/life. That said, I have worked to make stakeholder engagement a priority for my organization as we work to develop new projects and programs. Currently, we are developing a new patient and advocate training program. We are using surveys and one-on-one consultations with stakeholders (including patients, advocates, researchers, and others) to get gauge interest in the material we plan to cover and get input on prioritizing topics for the curriculum.
These stakeholder consultations are a critical part of the development process for us, because this will help ensure that the program we are developing will fulfill areas of need as identified by the communities we are serving. We plan to follow-up with the stakeholders we are engaging now in this initial survey throughout the development and implementation of our training program– this will provide a way to gauge “success” of the program and ensure the program sufficiently addressed stakeholder needs.
Hi Anne,
I just finished Lesson 2, however it would not let me click “exit” to complete–all other options in the top menu bar (other resources, help, etc.) were working, but when I click exit to finish the module, nothing happens. Did anyone else have this issue?
<span style=”line-height: 1.5em;”>Thanks,</span>
Alicia
Hi everyone!
I’m am very excited to be a part of this course and look forward to engaging with you all in the discussion forums moving forward!
I worked with Stacey Hannah to adapt a version of GPP for TB trials as part of my work on the Critical Path to TB Drug Regimens initiative. I am looking forward to taking a deeper dive into learning more about implementing GPP and incorporating GPP as a way of thought into other areas of my work outside of the research setting.
Best, Alicia
