Table 4.

Summary of stakeholder characteristics, definitions, domains and value scales in the initial framework, and key changes made after expert review, key informant interviews and consensus building exercise

Initial framework based on scoping review	Key changes after expert review	Key changes after key informant interviews and consensus building exercise
Knowledge
Definition: Stakeholder’s level of knowledge and understanding of the policy Domains: Knowledge of policy (awareness and ability to describe key features) Understanding of policy purpose Value scales: 1—No or minimum knowledge, 2—General knowledge, 3—Extensive knowledge	Definition: Retained Changes in domains: Knowledge of policy and its implementation Source of information (added) Value scales: Retained	Definition: Retained Changes in domains: Operational knowledge of policy Awareness of policy (added) Changes in value scales: 0—No knowledge, 1—Limited knowledge, 2—General knowledge, 3—Extensive knowledge Note: General knowledge defined as operational knowledge on policy, while extensive knowledge includes both operational knowledge and understanding of policy rationale
Interest
Definition: Extent to which stakeholders perceive policy implementation as relevant and likely to affect them Domains: Relevance of policy to stakeholder Willingness to participate in implementation Likelihood to affect stakeholder Value scales: 1—No or minimum interest, 2—Limited interest, 3—General interest, 4—High interest	Changes in definition: Stakeholder’s motivations and perceived impact of policy implementation to their own organisation Changes in domains: Policy objective core to organisation’s mission Policy is a priority for organisation Perceived impact of policy implementation to own organisation Value scales: Retained	Definition: Retained Changes in domains: Perceived policy impact in terms of opportunities and costs to the stakeholder Changes in value scales: 0—No Interest, 1—Limited interest, 2—General interest, 3—High interest
Power
Definition: The ability of the stakeholder to affect policy implementation Domains: Capacity to design policies Capacity to fund policy implementation Capacity to implement policy Ability to lead and gather support from stakeholders Ability to influence public opinion Value scales: 1—Low, 2—Medium, 3—High Note: Stakeholders rated based on possession and control of resources	Definition: Retained Changes in domains: Political authority (a) Direct: Derived from hierarchy, legal mandate, regulatory regimes. (b) Indirect: Ability to create incentives and constraints for other act. Financial capacity Possession and control of financial resources Technical expertise Technical capacity to produce, interpret and disseminate knowledge and information. Leadership Ability to build partnerships and motivate other stakeholders for or against policy implementation. Changes in value scales: 1—Low, 2—Medium, 3—High Note: Stakeholders rated based on possession and control of resources and ability to make decisions in policy implementation	Changes in definition: The potential ability of the stakeholder to affect policy implementation based on resources Changes in domains: Leadership (a)Ability to build partnerships, motivate other stakeholders and/or shape opinion for or against policy implementation. (b)Personal attributes of individuals within the organisation which can include charismatic authority, personal commitment and motivation Changes in value scales: 1—Low, 2—Medium, 3—High Note: Stakeholders rated based on possession and control of resources and potential to affect policy implementation
Position
Definition: Whether the stakeholder supports, opposes or is neutral about policy implementation Domains Degree of support or opposition to policy Value scales: 1—Opponent, 2—Moderate opponent, 3—Neutral, 4—Moderate supporter, 5—Supporter	Definition: Retained Changes in domains: Actions taken to demonstrate support or opposition to policy (added) Value scales: Retained	Definition: Retained Changes in domains: Degree of support or opposition to policy expressed through use of potential power or resources Actions taken to demonstrate support or opposition to policy Changes in value scales: 1—Strong opponent, 2—Moderate opponent, 3—Neutral, 4—Moderate support, 5—Strong support

Source: Definitions, domains and value scales for the frameworks were adapted from elements in the methodological papers and studies of Varvasovsky and Brugha (2000), Schmeer (2000), Abiiro and McIntyre (2013), Lehmann and Gilson (2013), Caniato et al (2014), Dalglish et al (2015) and Sriram et al (2018) and feedback from health policy experts and stakeholders.