The contribution of peer research in evaluating complex public health interventions: examples from two UK community empowerment projects.
Community empowerment
Complex interventions
Evaluation
Peer research
Research methods
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 11 2022
24 11 2022
Historique:
received:
25
01
2022
accepted:
27
10
2022
entrez:
24
11
2022
pubmed:
25
11
2022
medline:
29
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peer-research is steered and conducted by people with lived experience of the issues being researched. This paper explores the value of peer-research in two complex public health intervention evaluations in the UK. Reports from 18 peer research projects, completed by residents from 12 communities in the UK taking part in two community empowerment interventions, were analysed using cross-case analysis. Undertaking peer research helped to build the evaluation and research skills within individual projects as well as providing data on other outcomes related to the programmes Theory of Change. Some peer researchers, however, felt unprepared for the activity despite support from the academic team and were unsatisfied with project outcomes. While peer research projects provided more opportunities for local residents to engage with the overall evaluations, there was an overreliance on people closely connected to the programmes to be peer researchers. The peer research projects explored topics that were broader than the aims and objectives of the overall programme evaluations. All provided insight into the context in which projects occurred, while some also informed understanding of programme change mechanisms. Including peer research as part of complex public health intervention evaluations can help uncover important contextual and ecological details beyond the reach of more traditional evaluation data collection. Peer research can also empower and build research/evaluation capacity within communities, which is particularly pertinent for community empowerment interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Peer-research is steered and conducted by people with lived experience of the issues being researched. This paper explores the value of peer-research in two complex public health intervention evaluations in the UK.
METHODS
Reports from 18 peer research projects, completed by residents from 12 communities in the UK taking part in two community empowerment interventions, were analysed using cross-case analysis.
RESULTS
Undertaking peer research helped to build the evaluation and research skills within individual projects as well as providing data on other outcomes related to the programmes Theory of Change. Some peer researchers, however, felt unprepared for the activity despite support from the academic team and were unsatisfied with project outcomes. While peer research projects provided more opportunities for local residents to engage with the overall evaluations, there was an overreliance on people closely connected to the programmes to be peer researchers. The peer research projects explored topics that were broader than the aims and objectives of the overall programme evaluations. All provided insight into the context in which projects occurred, while some also informed understanding of programme change mechanisms.
CONCLUSIONS
Including peer research as part of complex public health intervention evaluations can help uncover important contextual and ecological details beyond the reach of more traditional evaluation data collection. Peer research can also empower and build research/evaluation capacity within communities, which is particularly pertinent for community empowerment interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36424569
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14465-2
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-14465-2
pmc: PMC9685878
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2164Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Health Promot Int. 2021 Oct 13;36(5):1253-1263
pubmed: 33382890
Health Educ Behav. 1997 Jun;24(3):369-87
pubmed: 9158980
Am J Public Health. 2010 Apr 1;100 Suppl 1:S40-6
pubmed: 20147663
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):376-90
pubmed: 24388291
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2002 Aug;26(4):337-42
pubmed: 12233954
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Dec 21;17(1):
pubmed: 31877710
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Jan 30;6:3
pubmed: 32015898
Perspect Public Health. 2022 Jul;142(4):209-212
pubmed: 35833554
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2014 Jul;68(7):692-6
pubmed: 24671849
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 May 7;19(1):92
pubmed: 31064323
BMC Public Health. 2017 Aug 22;17(1):674
pubmed: 28830396
Am J Public Health. 2011 Aug;101(8):1410-9
pubmed: 21680923
Crit Public Health. 2013 Dec;23(4):432-451
pubmed: 24273389
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Feb;70(2):207-14
pubmed: 26475921
Health Soc Care Community. 2018 Nov;26(6):769-786
pubmed: 29512217
Anthropol Med. 2019 Apr;26(1):48-64
pubmed: 31241366
Eur J Public Health. 2011 Aug;21(4):397-8
pubmed: 21771736
Health Policy. 2021 Aug;125(8):1054-1064
pubmed: 34112508
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Mar;272:113697
pubmed: 33508655