Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of toolkit questions for reflection and discussion by worksheet

From: Sharing power in global health research: an ethical toolkit for designing priority-setting processes that meaningfully include communities

 

Questions

Worksheet 1

1. Partners

For communities: Can your prospective academic partner(s) help improve the condition of the community

you are part of or that your organisation serves?

For academic researchers: Does your prospective community partner(s) represent and can it/they access a

community that is considered disadvantaged or marginalised in its diversity?

2. Framing

How will you frame the priority-setting process to the community/academic partner(s) being approached?

Worksheet 2

1. Building Foundations

How will relationships between partners be built or made stronger?

How will community partners be supported to participate in priority-setting?

2. Barriers

What barriers still might exist to sharing power between partners?

Worksheet 3

1. Existing Priorities

Have the community’s health research priorities, including those of the disadvantaged, less influential, lower

status, and/or marginalised, already been voiced?

2. Building Foundations

How will relationships between the research team and the wider community be built or made stronger before

priority-setting starts?

How will community members be supported to participate in priority-setting?

3. Barriers

What barriers to meaningful engagement with the wider community might still exist?

Worksheet 4A

1. Leadership

Who will lead the health research priority-setting process?

2. Scope

Will research topics be solicited relating to all health problems experienced by community members?

3. Empowerment

Will community partners be empowered as researchers during priority-setting?

Will community members’ capacity to participate in research priority-setting be strengthened?

4. Stage of Participation

What stage(s) of the priority-setting process do community partners want to be involved in?

What stage(s) of the priority-setting process will community members be involved in? Is this acceptable to them?*

5. Level of Participation

Will community members be involved as collaborators (decision-makers) and/or consultants? Is this acceptable to them?*

6. Diversity within the community

6a. Which community roles will you engage during priority-setting and for what reasons?

6b. List which of the roles identified in Q6a correspond to greater or lesser influence and status within the community.

6c. Who are considered disadvantaged, less influential, lower status, or marginalised within these roles?

6d. Which of those groups or stakeholders in Q6c will you engage and for what reasons?

6e. Is it fair to bring these community members into the same decision-making space?

7. Representation

Which organisations or individuals will represent the roles listed in Q6a in priority-setting?

Do these representatives encompass those considered disadvantaged, less influential, lower status, and/or marginalised within each role, as identified in Question 6c?

8. Mass

Will the number of community partner staff and community members be greater or equal to academic partner staff in consultations and deliberations during priority-setting?

Will the number of representatives of lower status community roles (identified in Q6b) be sufficient at consultations and deliberations during priority-setting?

9. Space

Where will you hold the priority-setting process for your research project?

10. Ground Rules

Will community partners and members be involved in developing and approving the ground rules for the priority-setting process? If not, what are your reasons?

What ground rules will you include to ensure stakeholders identified in Question 6d aren’t silenced during priority-setting?

11. Facilitation

Will you have a locally-based person facilitate consultations and deliberations during priority-setting? If not, what are your reasons?

How will the facilitation method/approach give participants an equal opportunity to speak at consultations and deliberations during priority-setting?

How will the facilitation method/approach make community partners and members feel comfortable sharing relevant, personal stories about their community’s health concerns at consultations and deliberations?

12. Listening

How will the research team ensure community partners’ and members’ ideas are listened to during consultations and deliberations?

13. Being Heard

Will the voices of community members, especially those considered disadvantaged, less influential, lower status, and/or marginalised, have equal or greater weight than other participants’ voices when setting research priorities? If not, what are your reasons?

14. Resources and Compensation

How will community partners and communities be compensated for participating in priority-setting?

Will community partners have control over any project resources?

Will full information about the research project’s budget be disclosed to community partners?

15. Unintended harms

What harms to community partners or members do you think might result from the priority-setting process?

16. Accountability

Will the research team act upon the final research topic and questions?

How will the final research topic and questions be fed back to field investigators and community members, including those considered disadvantaged, less influential, lower status, and/or marginalised, after priority-setting?

How are the research team and community members going to evaluate community members’ engagement in the priority-setting process?

  1. *To ascertain once specific community members are invited to participate