Transcript Tool 13 - Stakeholder Workshop Slideset

THIS SLIDESET IS AN EXAMPLE FROM A MeTA
WORKSHOP PROVIDED FOR ILLUSTRATION ONLY. IT
SHOULD BE ADAPTED BEFORE USE IN YOUR
ASSESSMENT
Stakeholder Workshop
Multi-stakeholder Assessment
[Enter names of facilitators]
1
To identify opportunities to improve knowledge and
A more comprehensive
information
systems with the aim of supporting decisionunderstanding of how we organise
making; the exchange of information; and increasing the
and exchange information
potential for learning and innovation
Suggestions
foramong
improvement
To create
awareness
stakeholders of the
opportunities and constraints that affect their performance
Identify innovative
solutions
could effectively remove
Commitment
from that
stakeholders
constraintstoand
take advantage
implement
change of opportunities
Slide
2
Time
Detail
8.00
Arrival and Registration
8.30
Introductory Session
9.00
Background to Baseline Assessment
9.15
Our Methodology
9.45
Introducing Workshop 1
10.10
Morning Comfort Break
10.30
Workshop 1: Problem Tree Analysis
12.00
Introducing Workshop 2
12.30
Lunch
14.00
Workshop 2: Creating an Innovation Tree
15.00
Afternoon Comfort Break
15.20
Workshop 3: Reviewing Innovations
16.20
Reflections
16.30
Close
Slide
3
7.
During the workshop we will be presenting issues that
came out of key informant interviews. We are not here to
argue whether these views are right or wrong but to
understand the assumptions and issues which led to this
presenting problem
We wish to promote DIALOGUE
Respect other people’s point of view (even if you don’t
agree) but also respect the right to challenge
appropriately (be tough on the issue NOT on the person)
Try to be punctual for sessions
Please silence your mobile phone
Avoid jargon wherever possible
Get involved!
Slide
4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
An introduction to MeTA
5
The Medicines Transparency Alliance aims to help
people get access to the medicines they need.
MeTA’s chosen tools are information and
accountability
Price
Slide
6
Promotion
Quality
Availability

MeTA has 5 core principles that all stakeholders agree
to:
1. Governments are responsible for providing access to health care
and essential medicines
2. Stronger and more transparent systems and improved supply
chain management will increase access
3. Increasing equitable access to medicines improves health and
enable other human development objectives to be reached
4. Improved information about medicines can inform public debate
and provide a basis for better policy
5. A multi-stakeholder approach that involves all sectors- private,
public and civil society – will lead to greater accountability
Slide
7
Overall Goal
...that data disclosure and systems for
transparency and accountability along medicines
registration, quality, prices, availability and
promotion are made available
Slide
8
Specific Objectives
1. To provide information and public access of data on
existing data and baseline data on medicines registration,
quality, prices, availability and ethical practices
2. To set-up and institutionalise mechanisms for
transparency and accountability at both the national and
decentralised levels
3. To develop a policy interface and establish a sustainable
mechanism for multi-stakeholder collaboration
Slide
9
Multi-stakeholder Assessment Methodology
10

The methodology developed for this assessment helps to uncover:
 the system that MeTA is working within;
 how different actors communicate and organise themselves;
 what stakeholders want from the multi-stakeholder process; and
 what it achieves and does not achieve.


Useful in complex multi-stakeholder partnerships
Key tactics include:
 Joint enquiry
 Contrasting results using a range of different phases
 Task driven
Slide 11

Our methodology has 3 main phases
 Phase A: Defining the relevant system and it problems
 Stakeholder analysis; development of questionnaire tool
 Phase B: Analysing constraints and opportunities
 Stakeholder interviews; analysis of key findings
 Phase C: Articulating strategies for action
 Stakeholder workshop; Country report; participatory tools
Slide 12

Phase A: Defining the relevant system and its problems
The first phase is to identify opportunities to improve the
knowledge and information system by looking at the broader
environment that MeTA stakeholders are working within, the
problems that the multi-stakeholder process is hoping to
overcome and the actors involved. The tools used in this
phase include core document review, informal conversations
with key informants and desk based research.
Slide 13

Phase B: Analysing constraints and opportunities
In the second phase team members systematically gather
information on the social organisation of innovation by conducting
face-to-face interviews with MeTA stakeholders. This results in a
more detailed picture of how different networks of actors interact,
the issues that dominate their debates, and the way they
coordinate their activities or fail to do so. Interview findings are
discussed with the research team and MeTA staff to improve
understanding of the positionality of respondents. They are then
placed into a matrix grid to allow for easy identification of recurring
themes and patterns which help guide the analysis.
Slide 14

Phase C: Articulating strategies for action
During the third phase the opportunities and constraints
identified in earlier phases provide a basis for coming to an
agreement on future actions to strengthen the multistakeholder process. The main tool for this phase is a multistakeholder workshop at which the analysis from the first 2
phases are discussed and clarified to make sure that our
understanding is robust. Mission clarification is conducted.
Using participatory tools we corroborate data collected from
earlier phases to triangulate our findings and strategise about
how barriers can be overcome.
Slide 15
Key findings from stakeholder interviews
16

Purpose of the Stakeholder interviews:
 Learn about where stakeholders get their information from,
ease of access and quality of information; and
communication within the network
 Explore policy challenges; how these are highlighted and
addressed and dissemination and communication of policy
 Ability to influence decision-making processes and the
range of tools and methods for influencing
 Explore a range of innovative ways of communication and
how the network could support this
Slide 17
Type of Organisation
Source
NGO
Private Sector
-
International
Organisation
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Public
Sector
33%
100%
50%
-
100%
67%
67%
67%
50%
50%
-
50%
25%
100%
33%
100%
33%
-
100%
-
25%
33%
67%
33%
50%
-
-
-
33%
-
-
50%
-
-
-
-
-
50%
-
-
-
33%
-
67%
-
-
-
-
2
12
4
3
3
3
Academia
Customer
Internet
Meetings
Email/Groups
100%
50%
Newspapers
Reports
Academic
Publications
Symposia/
Conferences
Mass Media
Medical
Professionals
Relatives &
Friends
Total
Respondents
Slide 18

Communication channels preferred
◦ Internet: expedient, convenient, diverse sources
◦ Face-to-face: interactive, to get information not found in
documents, for critical issues, to ask questions
◦ International networks: access to international sources

Communication sources preferred
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Slide
Scientific studies/surveys: reliable, evidence-based
WHO: credible
IMS: updated market data but expensive
Grassroots communities: people’s needs and perceptions
Peer sources

Need to engage more with the media

Technical reports must be “laymanized” so that the public can
understand them

No single, comprehensive and credible health information system
in the country

Policies are not communicated in the local dialects of people on the
ground


Lack of government funds to support employees facing workrelated lawsuits; result: tendency to protect themselves by
withholding information
Many stakeholders do not know where to get a copy of the national
drug formulary
Price
Slide 20
Promotion
Quality
Availability


Little transparency in drug procurement by
national and local governments
Lack of clarity in drug pricing by the private
sector
Price
Slide 21
Promotion
Quality
Availability


To get information about drugs, buyers rely
mainly on relatives and friends, mass media
and their doctors
Not all doctors inform their patients on drug
choices
Price
Slide 22
Promotion
Quality
Availability


Gaps in quality checks of imported drugs
More independent and accredited drug testing
laboratories are needed
Price
Slide 23
Promotion
Quality
Availability





No check-and-balance in the case of doctors who also
dispense medicines
Public: generally uninformed on drug choices; rely more
on what their doctors prescribe
Drugs in GMAP list volunteered by drug companies are
mostly those bought by the rich; result: Cheaper
Medicines Law does not benefit the poor
No pharmacists in most Botika ng Barangay
Not all doctors educate patients on choices of
medicines; not all drug stores have pharmacists
Price
Slide 24
Promotion
Quality
Availability
Problem tree analysis
25
The problem tree establishes cause and effect to
ensure that root problems are identified and then
addressed
The main steps are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Identify one or two initial core problems
Identify related problems/constraints
Analyse and identify cause and effect
relationships
Check the logic
Draft the problem tree diagram
Slide 26
Effects
Heart
Angina
attack
Rising
CHD
Core Problem
Diet
Causes
Slide
Fast
Foods
Increased
Dependency on
services & family
members
Smoking
Poor
availability of
fresh produce
Habit
Forming
Peer
Pressure

The purpose of the workshop session is to:
1. Identify channels and processes that could increase access
to information about medicines; and
2. Explore factors that constrain our collective performance
and ability to deliver MeTA objectives.
Slide 28
Instructions for group work:
You will be allocated to 1 of 3 groups that will use
problem tree analysis to explore the following ‘core
problems’:
1. Information on medicines is limited and not publicly
accessible negatively affecting drug pricing, promotion,
quality and availability
2. Key constraints are affecting transparent pro-poor drug
policy development and implementation
3. Multi-stakeholder participation in MeTA is variable and
affecting performance
Slide 29
Workshop 1: problem tree analysis
30




Please get into your groups
Read the instructions on the handout
Should you have any questions ask your facilitator
Get involved your opinion is important!
Slide 31
Creating an objective tree
32
Objectives
Effects
Reduction in
patients reporting
symptoms of angina
Decrease in
prevalence of
heart
attacks
attack
Heart
Angina
Rising
Reduce
CHD
CHD
Core Problem
Aim
Causes
Activities
Slide
25%Increased
increase in
Dependency on
people living
services & family
independent
memberslives
Mass media
campaign to
promote healthy
eating
Increase awareness of
dangers of smoking via
campaign
Diet
Cookery
Fast
Classes
Foods
Smoking
Fresh food
Availability of
delivery in poor
fresh produce
areas
Nicotine
Habit
Replacement
Forming
Therapy
Peer Peer
education
programmes
Pressure
Workshop 2
34
Please remain in the same groups as for
workshop 1:




Please get into your groups
Read the instructions on the handout
Should you have any questions ask your facilitator
Get involved your opinion is important!
Slide 35
The role of MeTA
36
Specific Objectives
1.
2.
The provision of information and public access of existing
data relating to medicine registration; quality; prices;
availability and ethical practices
The set-up and institutionalisation of processes for
transparency and accountability at both national and
decentralised areas
3.
Development of policy interfaces
4.
Establishment of sustainable mechanisms for multistakeholder collaboration
Slide 37
How do you feel today has gone?
38
Please complete and return your evaluation form
before leaving us today
39
Stakeholder Workshop
40