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

Melody S. Goodman; Vetta L. Sanders Thompson

doi:10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z

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

Melody S. Goodman, Vetta L. Sanders Thompson

Global Public Health

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

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.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	486-491
Number of pages	6
Journal	Translational Behavioral Medicine
Volume	7
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z
State	Published - Sep 1 2017

Keywords

Community engagement
Evaluation
Implementation science
Stakeholder-engaged research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Applied Psychology
Behavioral Neuroscience

Access to Document

10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z

Cite this

@article{468c1cbd443f42e4bbce366b0b1d27ec,

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

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{\textquoteright}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",

author = "Goodman, {Melody S.} and {Sanders Thompson}, {Vetta L.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017, Society of Behavioral Medicine.",

year = "2017",

month = sep,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "7",

pages = "486--491",

journal = "Translational Behavioral Medicine",

issn = "1869-6716",

publisher = "Springer Publishing Company",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The science of stakeholder engagement in research

T2 - classification, implementation, and evaluation

AU - Goodman, Melody S.

AU - Sanders Thompson, Vetta L.

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Community engagement

KW - Evaluation

KW - Implementation science

KW - Stakeholder-engaged research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85031913966&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85031913966&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z

DO - 10.1007/s13142-017-0495-z

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 28397159

AN - SCOPUS:85031913966

SN - 1869-6716

VL - 7

SP - 486

EP - 491

JO - Translational Behavioral Medicine

JF - Translational Behavioral Medicine

IS - 3

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this