Tackling wicked problems in infection prevention and control: a guideline for co-creation with stakeholders

Abstract

BackgroundInfection prevention and control can be seen as a wicked public health problem as there is no consensus regarding problem definition and solution, multiple stakeholders with different needs and values are involved, and there is no clear end-point of the problem-solving process. Co-creation with stakeholders has been proposed as a suitable strategy to tackle wicked problems, yet little information and no clear step-by-step guide exist on how to do this. The objectives of this study were to develop a guideline to assist developers in tackling wicked problems using co-creation with stakeholders, and to apply this guideline to practice with an example case in the field of infection prevention and control.MethodsA mixed-method approach consisting of the integration of both quantitative and qualitative research was used. Relevant stakeholders from the veterinary, human health, and public health sectors were identified using a literature scan, expert recommendations, and snowball sampling. The stakeholder salience approach was used to select key stakeholders based on 3 attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency. Key values of stakeholders (N = 20) were derived by qualitative semi-structured interviews and quantitatively weighted and prioritized using an online survey.ResultsOur method showed that stakeholder identification and analysis are prerequisites for understanding the complex stakeholder network that characterizes wicked problems. A total of 73 stakeholders were identified of which 36 were selected as potential key stakeholders, and only one was seen as a definite stakeholder. In addition, deriving key stakeholder values is a necessity to gain insights into different problem definitions, solutions and needs stakeholders have regarding the wicked problem. Based on the methods used, we developed a step-by-step guideline for co-creation with stakeholders when tackling wicked problems.ConclusionsThe mixed-methods guideline presented here provides a systematic, transparent method to identify, analyze, and co-create with stakeholders, and to recognize and prioritize their values, problem definitions, and solutions in the context of wicked problems. This guideline consists of a general framework and although it was applied in an eHealth context, may be relevant outside of eHealth as well.

Creating value with eHealth: identification of the value proposition with key stakeholders for the resilience navigator app

“…Although key stakeholder engagement is important during the development of eHealth technology [18,19], it is often neglected [4]. Key stakeholders are stakeholders with an important say during the design and implementation of eHealth technology, and a lack of stakeholder support can jeopardise its successful uptake.…”

“…Key stakeholders are stakeholders with an important say during the design and implementation of eHealth technology, and a lack of stakeholder support can jeopardise its successful uptake. One of the main reasons for a lack of stakeholder engagement is the presumption that maintaining relationships with all stakeholders and comprehensive qualitative data collection and analysis make it a rather time-consuming process [19]. This is exacerbated by the fact that the eHealth domain has a particularly complex stakeholder network [19].…”

Institutional Engagement Practices as Barriers to Public Health Capacity in Climate Change Policy Discourse: Lessons from the Canadian Province of Ontario

“…Characterized as a “wicked problem,” climate change is a contemporary phenomenon with unparalleled complexity [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. It spans several social, environmental, and political issues; it requires the inclusion of various stakeholders and voices with different ideas about the nature of the problem.…”

Organization and training at national level of antimicrobial stewardship and infection control activities in Europe: an ESCMID cross-sectional survey

“…This is the result of a complex interaction of factors, some of them beyond the reach of healthcare professionals such as antimicrobial use in agriculture [2]. The heterogeneous implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and infection prevention and control (IPC) programmes in different countries also contributes to this variation [3][4][5][6]. However, little is known regarding the differences in organization and training of AMS and IPC activities between countries.…”