We selected panellists from the university and the university hospital to ensure representation of three groups of stakeholders: five education experts, twelve clinical teachers and ten residents [ 50].
We made a particular effort to ensure panellists selected were representative of the diverse rural and remote and/or Indigenous PHC field.
Into the outside panel (34 panellists) were selected persons from other positions and fields of the society so that as many external interests and as much knowledge as possible become included in the inspection.
Our panellists were selected for their expertise in malaria in particular, but also their wider clinical and research experience with non-malarial illnesses, including in bacterial diseases.
Panellists were selected on the basis of known good practices in the region.
These panellists were selected based on their membership in the SNCDs of the ECDCP.
We will repeat this process until a majority of panellists have selected the same three genetic and seven non-genetic topics.
Responding panellists self-selected themselves into one of five 'stakeholder' groups: clinical academic (CA), (20%); non-CA (NCA), (28%); member of the public (MP), (17%); research manager or funding/commissioning body employee (RM), (24%); or occupying multiple roles (MR), (11%).
Responding panellists self-selected themselves into one of five 'stakeholder' groups, as outlined in table 3. High levels of expertise were reported by panellists (table 4), but despite high levels of expertise, fewer than half (n=134; 48%) had undergone formal training relevant to PI in health and social care research.
Panellists were purposively selected based on their expertise and international reputation in managing malaria as well as other infectious diseases in Africa and Asia, their involvement in the global malaria policy process, and their relevant publications in the clinical literature.
