Table 5

Finalised framework for stakeholder analysis applied to the PhilPEN policy implementation context

Knowledge
Definition: Stakeholders’ knowledge and understanding of the policy Domains: Awareness of policy Operational knowledge of policy Understanding of policy rationale Source of information	Value scales: 0—No knowledge Stakeholder is not aware of policy 1—Limited knowledge Stakeholder is aware of policy but have minimal knowledge about its purpose or implementation 2—General knowledge Stakeholder has operational knowledge about policy 3—Extensive knowledge Stakeholder understands policy rationale and has operational knowledge of policy
Interest
Definition: Stakeholder’s motivations and perceived impact of policy implementation to their own organisation. Domains: CVD control core to organisation’s mission Policy is a priority for organisation Perceived policy impact in terms of opportunities and costs to the stakeholder	Value scales: 0—No interest Policy is not considered a priority and not perceived to impact stakeholder 1—Limited interest Policy is not considered a priority and has minimum impact on stakeholder 2—General interest Policy is a priority and has moderate impact on stakeholder 3—High interest Policy is part of the stakeholder’s core mission and has high perceived impact on stakeholder
Power
Definition: The potential ability of the stakeholder to affect policy implementation Domains: *Political authority* Direct: Derived from hierarchy, legal mandate, regulatory regimes. Indirect: Ability to create incentives and constraints for other actors. *Financial capacity* Possession and control of financial resources *Technical expertise* Technical capacity to produce, intrepet and disseminate knowledge and information *Leadership* Ability to build partnerships, motivate other stakeholders and/or shape opinion for or against policy implementation. Personal attributes of individuals within the organisation which can include charismatic authority, personal commitment and motivation.	Value scales: 1—Low power Stakeholder possesses and has control over use of one to two sources of power, low potential to affect policy implementation 2—Medium power Stakeholder possesses and has control over use of two to three sources of power, has moderate potential to affect policy implementation 3—High power Stakeholder possesses and has control over use of three to four sources of power, has high 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 expressed through use of potential power (sources of power) Actions taken to demonstrate support or opposition to policy	Value scales: 1—Strong opponent Stakeholder uses potential power to strongly act against policy implementation 2—Moderate opponent Stakeholder uses potential power to moderately act against policy implementation 3—Neutral Stakeholder does not use potential power and does not act for or against policy implementation 4—Moderate support Stakeholder uses potential power to moderately act in support of policy implementation 5—Strong support Stakeholder uses potential power to act strongly in support of policy implementation

Source: Definitions, domains and value scales for the framework 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.