Exploring the perspectives of community members as research partners in rural and remote areas.
Integrated knowledge translation
Patient and public involvement
Patient-oriented research
Population health
Qualitative health research
Qualitative methods
Rural health
Journal
Research involvement and engagement
ISSN: 2056-7529
Titre abrégé: Res Involv Engagem
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101708164
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
06
09
2019
accepted:
15
01
2020
entrez:
5
2
2020
pubmed:
6
2
2020
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Community engagement in research has the potential to support the development of meaningful health promotion interventions to address health inequities. People living in rural and remote areas face increased barriers to participation in health research and may be unjustly excluded from participation. It is necessary to understand the process of patient and public engagement from the perspective of community members to support partnered research in underserved areas. The aim of this project was to increase understanding on how to include community members from rural and remote areas as partners on research teams. Using purposive sampling, we completed semi-structured interviews with a representative sample of 12 community members in rural and remote areas of northern British Columbia, Canada. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Following an integrated knowledge translation approach, an inductive thematic analysis was completed to incorporate researcher and knowledge user perspectives. The factors important to community members for becoming involved in research include: 1) relevance; 2) communication; and 3) empowering participation. The analysis suggests projects must be relevant to both communities and individuals. Most participants stated that they would not be interested in becoming partners on research projects that did not have a direct benefit or value for their communities. Participants expressed the need for clear expectations and clarification of preferred communication mechanisms. Communication must be regular, appropriate in length and content, and written in a language that is accessible. It is essential to ensure that community members are recognized as subject matter experts, to provide appropriate training on the research process, and to use research outcomes to support decision making. To engage research partners in rural and remote communities, research questions and outcomes should be co-produced with community members. In-person relationships can help establish trust and bidirectional communication mechanisms are prudent throughout the research process, including the appropriate sharing of research findings. Although this project did not include community members as research team members or in the co-production of this research article, we present guidelines for research teams interested in adding a patient or public perspective to their integrated knowledge translation teams.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Community engagement in research has the potential to support the development of meaningful health promotion interventions to address health inequities. People living in rural and remote areas face increased barriers to participation in health research and may be unjustly excluded from participation. It is necessary to understand the process of patient and public engagement from the perspective of community members to support partnered research in underserved areas. The aim of this project was to increase understanding on how to include community members from rural and remote areas as partners on research teams.
METHODS
METHODS
Using purposive sampling, we completed semi-structured interviews with a representative sample of 12 community members in rural and remote areas of northern British Columbia, Canada. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Following an integrated knowledge translation approach, an inductive thematic analysis was completed to incorporate researcher and knowledge user perspectives.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The factors important to community members for becoming involved in research include: 1) relevance; 2) communication; and 3) empowering participation. The analysis suggests projects must be relevant to both communities and individuals. Most participants stated that they would not be interested in becoming partners on research projects that did not have a direct benefit or value for their communities. Participants expressed the need for clear expectations and clarification of preferred communication mechanisms. Communication must be regular, appropriate in length and content, and written in a language that is accessible. It is essential to ensure that community members are recognized as subject matter experts, to provide appropriate training on the research process, and to use research outcomes to support decision making.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
To engage research partners in rural and remote communities, research questions and outcomes should be co-produced with community members. In-person relationships can help establish trust and bidirectional communication mechanisms are prudent throughout the research process, including the appropriate sharing of research findings. Although this project did not include community members as research team members or in the co-production of this research article, we present guidelines for research teams interested in adding a patient or public perspective to their integrated knowledge translation teams.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32015898
doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-0179-6
pii: 179
pmc: PMC6990467
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
3Informations de copyright
© The Author(s). 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Qual Health Res. 2012 May;22(5):708-18
pubmed: 22232294
Contemp Nurse. 2002 Dec;14(1):56-65
pubmed: 16114194
Implement Sci. 2015 Dec 12;10:171
pubmed: 26653578
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 17;11:38
pubmed: 26988000
Health Promot Pract. 2006 Jul;7(3):312-23
pubmed: 16760238
J Comp Eff Res. 2013 May;2(3):313-24
pubmed: 24236630
Am J Public Health. 2011 Aug;101(8):1410-9
pubmed: 21680923
PLoS Biol. 2017 May 3;15(5):e2001403
pubmed: 28467412
Aust Health Rev. 2016 Sep;40(4):459-465
pubmed: 26497876
J Phys Act Health. 2014 Jan;11(1):68-75
pubmed: 23250028
Health Promot Int. 2019 Apr 1;34(2):356-366
pubmed: 29206912
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Feb 12;5:8
pubmed: 30805202
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 10;10(11):e0140659
pubmed: 26554376
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Nov 21;19(1):211
pubmed: 31752691
Res Involv Engagem. 2018 May 22;4:17
pubmed: 29796308
Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2016 Apr;36(4):76-86
pubmed: 27077793
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2017 Feb 08;6(5):299-300
pubmed: 28812820
BMC Public Health. 2015 Apr 14;15:378
pubmed: 25879818
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015 Sep;42(5):533-44
pubmed: 24193818
Res Involv Engagem. 2019 Feb 11;5:7
pubmed: 30788148
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):307-316
pubmed: 30761699
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2013 Fall;7(3):281-90
pubmed: 24056510
Arch Public Health. 2019 May 20;77:22
pubmed: 31139407
Milbank Q. 2012 Jun;90(2):311-46
pubmed: 22709390
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Jan;34(1):125-131
pubmed: 30353249
Fam Pract. 2017 Jun 1;34(3):336-340
pubmed: 28334802