OBJECTIVE: We describe our stakeholder engagement process for grant application development that occurred as part of our integrated knowledge translation plan and make recommendations for researchers. METHOD: In phase 1, a stakeholder consultation group was developed. In phase 2, surveys regarding knowledge gathering, research agenda, and research collaboration preferences were sent to 333 cross-sectoral youth-serving organizations in Ontario, including family and consumer organizations. RESULTS: In phase 1, 28 stakeholders from six sectors participated in the consultation group and provided input on multiple aspects of the proposal. Through this process, 19 stakeholders adopted formal roles within the project. In phase 2, 206 surveys were received (response rate = 62%). Survey responses supported the grant focus (concurrent youth mental health and substance use problems). Respondents also prioritized project goals and provided specific feedback on research and knowledge translation. Finally, although some stakeholders chose greater involvement, most survey respondents indicated a preference for a moderate level of participation in research rather than full team membership. CONCLUSIONS: Despite short timelines and feasibility challenges, stakeholders can be meaningfully engaged in and contribute to the grant proposal development process. Consideration is needed for the practical challenges that stakeholder organizations face in supporting and participating in research.
OBJECTIVE: We describe our stakeholder engagement process for grant application development that occurred as part of our integrated knowledge translation plan and make recommendations for researchers. METHOD: In phase 1, a stakeholder consultation group was developed. In phase 2, surveys regarding knowledge gathering, research agenda, and research collaboration preferences were sent to 333 cross-sectoral youth-serving organizations in Ontario, including family and consumer organizations. RESULTS: In phase 1, 28 stakeholders from six sectors participated in the consultation group and provided input on multiple aspects of the proposal. Through this process, 19 stakeholders adopted formal roles within the project. In phase 2, 206 surveys were received (response rate = 62%). Survey responses supported the grant focus (concurrent youth mental health and substance use problems). Respondents also prioritized project goals and provided specific feedback on research and knowledge translation. Finally, although some stakeholders chose greater involvement, most survey respondents indicated a preference for a moderate level of participation in research rather than full team membership. CONCLUSIONS: Despite short timelines and feasibility challenges, stakeholders can be meaningfully engaged in and contribute to the grant proposal development process. Consideration is needed for the practical challenges that stakeholder organizations face in supporting and participating in research.
Authors: Ian D Graham; Jo Logan; Margaret B Harrison; Sharon E Straus; Jacqueline Tetroe; Wenda Caswell; Nicole Robinson Journal: J Contin Educ Health Prof Date: 2006 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Stacey D Espinet; Sandra Gotovac; Sommer Knight; Larry Wissow; Merrick Zwarenstein; Lorelei Lingard; Margaret Steele Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Joanna L Henderson; E B Brownlie; Shelley McMain; Gloria Chaim; David A Wolfe; Brian Rush; Tali Boritz; Joseph H Beitchman Journal: Early Interv Psychiatry Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Joanna L Henderson; Gloria Chaim; Stephanie Luca; E B Brownlie; Susan Rosenkranz; Tracey A Skilling; Joseph H Beitchman Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.655