Cost and value of stakeholders participation: A systematic literature review

Anggraeni, Mustika; Gupta, Joyeeta; Verrest, Hebe

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.012

Cited by 47 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…donors and those with professional expertise being valued above that of CSOs and citizens. It was suggested in our study and elsewhere that the extent of the in uence possible in centralised policy-making is relative to the nancial contribution made by the stakeholder (22). Limited government funding may also explain the use of preferred partners, perhaps inviting partners who have the independent means to attend consultation events held in the MoH headquarters in Lilongwe.…”

Section: Inclusive Engagementmentioning

confidence: 69%

Stakeholder engagement in the health policy process in a low income country: a qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions of the challenges to effective inclusion in Malawi

Masefield

Msosa

Chinguwo

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Inclusive engagement in healthcare policies and decision-making, including with patients, non-government organisations and local government, is essential to address the needs of patients and communities, reducing health inequities and increasing the accountability of the government. In low income countries such as Malawi, with significant health challenges, stakeholder inclusion is particularly important to improve performance and service delivery. The 2017 National Health Plan II (NHP II) and accompanying Health Sector Strategic Plan II (HSSP II) aimed to improve the functioning of the healthcare system. The Ministry of Health for Malawi intended to involve all key health sector stakeholders in their development. This study explores the extent of stakeholder engagement in the health policy process through the perceptions of local level stakeholders of their engagement in the NHP II and HSSP II.Methods: A qualitative study design was used. Interviews were conducted with 19 representatives of organisations operating at the local level, such as civil society organisations and local government. Open questions were asked about experiences and perceptions of the development of the NHP II and HSSP II. Inductive content analysis was performed.Results: Stakeholders perceived barriers to inclusive and meaningful engagement in the health policy process. Three categories were identified: power (tokenistic involvement; stakeholder hierarchy; mutual distrust); representation (preferred stakeholders; open versus invited engagement); stakeholder-driven engagement. Conclusions: Local level stakeholders identified serious challenges to the meaningful and equitable engagement of stakeholder groups in the health policy process. Issues of trust, accountability and hierarchy in donor-citizen-government relations must be addressed to support stakeholder engagement. Engagement must go beyond tokenism to embed a range of stakeholders in the process with feedback mechanisms to ensure impact from their contributions. Local level stakeholders can be empowered to advocate for and participate in both invited and open stakeholder engagement exercises, and policy literacy increased but greater top-down efforts to engage stakeholders via diverse and inclusive methods are also required. These issues are not unique to Malawi or to health policy-making.

show abstract

Section: Inclusive Engagementmentioning

confidence: 69%

Stakeholder engagement in the health policy process in a low income country: a qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions of the challenges to effective inclusion in Malawi

Masefield

Msosa

Chinguwo

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Preliminary information shows that a lack of resources can hamper the nature and outcome of participation, leading to the inclusion/exclusion of stakeholders in participatory processes [ 23 ]. Since there are very limited data on how much participation actually costs in the broader participation literature (ibid), we used our experience from the Mauritius case study to explore these costs in more detail.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is also valid to feedback HIA findings to the community, to strengthen equity and gather baseline information for routine impact assessment. The literature reports that citizen participation is a complex process that can be expensive [ 23 ] and requires citizen organization to have effective influence [ 48 ]. In developing countries, however, not enough evidence exists to verify such statement and our case study reports otherwise (see previous section).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Framework for Participatory Quantitative Health Impact Assessment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Thondoo

Vries

Rojas-Rueda

et al. 2020

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Conducting health impact assessments (HIAs) is a growing practice in various organizations and countries, yet scholarly interest in HIAs has primarily focused on the synergies between exposure and health outcomes. This limits our understanding of what factors influence HIAs and the uptake of their outcomes. This paper presents a framework for conducting participatory quantitative HIA (PQHIA) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including integrating the outcomes back into society after an HIA is conducted. The study responds to the question: what are the different components of a participatory quantitative model that can influence HIA implementation in LMICs? Methods: To build the framework, we used a case study from a PQHIA fieldwork model developed in Port Louis (Mauritius). To explore thinking on the participatory components of the framework, we extract and analyze data from ethnographic material including fieldnotes, interviews, focus group discussions and feedback exercises with 14 stakeholders from the same case study. We confirm the validity of the ethnographic data using five quality criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and authenticity. We build the PQHIA framework connecting the main HIA steps with factors influencing HIAs. Results: The final framework depicts the five standard HIA stages and summarizes participatory activities and outcomes. It also reflects key factors influencing PQHIA practice and uptake of HIA outcomes: costs for participation, HIA knowledge and interest of stakeholders, social responsibility of policymakers, existing policies, data availability, citizen participation, multi-level stakeholder engagement and multisectoral coordination. The framework suggests that factors necessary to complete a participatory HIA are the same needed to re-integrate HIA results back into the society. There are three different areas that can act as facilitators to PQHIAs: good governance, evidence-based policy making, and access to resources. Conclusions: The framework has several implications for research and practice. It underlines the importance of applying participatory approaches critically while providing a blueprint for methods to engage local stakeholders. Participatory approaches in quantitative HIAs are complex and demand a nuanced understanding of the context. Therefore, the political and cultural contexts in which HIA is conducted will define how the framework is applied. Finally, the framework underlines that participation in HIA does not need to be expensive or time consuming for the assessor or the participant. Yet, participatory quantitative models need to be contextually developed and integrated if they are to provide health benefits and be beneficial for the participants. This integration can be facilitated by investing in opportunities that fuel good governance and evidence-based policy making.

show abstract

“…In turn, information on costs is often scarce or non-existent . A recent review study (Anggraeni, 2019) concluded that the articles that refer to benefits of e-participation are three times more frequent than those that refer to costs; that cost and benefits (or value) are very rarely addressed together; and that the literature does not elaborate from whose perspective the costs and value should be calculated and budgeted, even though the costs of participation influence participation processes and outcomes .…”

Section: Box 11mentioning

confidence: 99%

E-participation: A Quick Overview of Recent Qualitative Trends

Blanc¹

2020

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper briefly takes stock of two decades of e-participation initiatives based on a limited review of the academic literature. The purpose of the paper is to complement the results of the e-government Survey 2020. As such, the emphasis is on aspects that the e-government survey (based on analysis of e-government portals and on quantitative indicators) does not capture directly. Among those are the challenges faced by e-participation initiatives and key areas of attention for governments. The paper maps the field of e-participation and related activities, as well as its relationships with other governance concepts. Areas of recent development in terms of e-participation applications are briefly reviewed. The paper selectively highlights conclusions from the literature on different participation tools, as well as a list of key problematic areas for policy makers. The paper concludes that while e-participation platforms using new technologies have spread rapidly in developed countries in the first decade of the 2000s and in developing countries during the last 10 years, it is not clear that their multiplication has translated into broader or deeper citizen participation. Beyond reasons related to technology access and digital skills, factors such as lack of understanding of citizens' motivations to participate and the reluctance of public institutions to genuinely share agenda setting and decision-making power seem to play an important role in the observed limited progress.

show abstract

Cost and value of stakeholders participation: A systematic literature review

Cited by 47 publications

References 47 publications

Stakeholder engagement in the health policy process in a low income country: a qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions of the challenges to effective inclusion in Malawi

Stakeholder engagement in the health policy process in a low income country: a qualitative study of stakeholder perceptions of the challenges to effective inclusion in Malawi

Framework for Participatory Quantitative Health Impact Assessment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

E-participation: A Quick Overview of Recent Qualitative Trends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About