A scoping review of co-production between researchers and journalists in research communication.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: MacGregor S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7484548 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A scoping review of co-production between researchers and journalists in research communication.
MacGregor Stephen S Cooper Amanda A Coombs Andrew A DeLuca Christopher C
Heliyon 20200904 9
Co-production is rapidly gaining purchase as an approach to making research matter more to diverse audiences. There exists a wealth of information about co-production in areas such as public administration and sustainability science, but comparatively little within the specific area of research communication. In particular, little is known about the harnessing the potential of researchers and journalists engaging in co-production to generate evidence-based knowledge, foster an informed public, a ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe importance of engaging parents in health research as co-researchers is gaining growing recognition. While a number of benefits of involving parents as co-researchers have been proposed, guidelines on exactly how effective engagement can be achieved are lacking. The objectives of this scoping review were to (i) synthesize current evidence on engaging parents as co-researchers in health research; (ii) identify the potential benefits and challenges of engaging parent co-researchers; and (iii) identify gaps in the literature.MethodsA scoping literature review was conducted using established methodology. Four research databases and one large grey literature database were searched, in addition to hand-searching relevant journals. Articles meeting specific inclusion criteria were retrieved and data extracted. Common characteristics were identified and summarized.ResultsTen articles were included in the review, assessed as having low-to-moderate quality. Parent co-researchers were engaged in the planning, design, data collection, analysis and dissemination aspects of research. Structural enablers included reimbursement and childcare. Benefits of engaging parent co-researchers included enhancing the relevance of research to the target population, maximizing research participation and parent empowerment. Challenges included resource usage, wide-ranging experiences, lack of role clarity and power differences between parent co-researchers and researchers. Evaluation of parent co-researcher engagement was heterogeneous and lacked rigour.ConclusionsA robust evidence base is currently lacking in how to effectively engage parent co-researchers. However, the review offers some insights into specific components that may form the basis of future research to inform the development of best practice guidelines.
| S-EPMC5513005 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextImplicating patients in research is gaining popularity around the world and is now the reference of many funding agencies. Understanding these partnerships is necessary to grasp this new reality. The experiences of researchers who have involved patient-partners (PPs) in health research are important for a better understanding of these practices.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify and analyze the existing qualitative scientific literature on the experiences of academic researchers involved in health research with patient engagement (PE).DesignA scoping review of the available literature with an inductive thematic synthesis, guided by the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley.Data collectionA search strategy was developed to include keywords relating to researchers, patient-partners, experiences, and the qualitative methodologies of the targeted studies. Five databases were searched using the EBSCO-host engine. The search results were screened by four reviewers to only include articles written in English on the topic of the experience of academic researchers having worked with PPs in health research based on qualitative studies or mixed-methods studies with a distinct qualitative section.AnalysisArticles included were charted for general information. All "results" sections were coded line by line. These codes were organized inductively to form descriptive and analytical themes. This led to the synthesis of the ideas found in the selected articles.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 7616 results, of which 2468 duplicates were removed. The remaining 5148 articles were screened, resulting in the exclusion of 5114 off-topic studies. The remaining 29 full-text articles were evaluated for inclusion from which 5 additional studies were identified. The final selection consisted of 11 articles that met all the criteria. These articles were published between 2009 and 2019. Five general themes inductively emerged from the analysis: the understanding of PE, motivations, contexts, attitudes, and practical aspects of PE that are central to researchers.ConclusionThis scoping review provides a better understanding of the experiences of researchers who have implemented patient partnerships in health research projects. Our findings reveal many positive elements central to health researchers' discourses about PE, but they provide insights into the challenges and postures of resistance. This knowledge can support the development of empirically sound improvements in PE practices.
| S-EPMC10088213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAddressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.MethodsWe searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.ConclusionsThere are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.
| S-EPMC2994786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open science by contextualizing and communicating research findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Through engagement with and coverage of open research outputs, journalists can help align the ideals of openness, transparency, and accountability with the wider public sphere and its democratic potential. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs in their reporting, what factors motivate or constrain this use, and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the relationship between open science and science journalism. This literature review thus examines journalists' use of open research outputs, specifically open access publications and preprints. We focus on literature published from 2018 onwards-particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic-but also include seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that, despite journalists' potential to act as critical brokers of open access knowledge, their use of open research outputs is hampered by an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. Finally, given the dearth of research in this area, we conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open science and science journalism.
| S-EPMC10618641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth researchers are increasingly using social media in a professional capacity, and the applications of social media for health researchers are vast. However, there is currently no published evidence synthesis of the ways in which health researchers use social media professionally, and uncertainty remains as to how best to harness its potential.ObjectiveThis scoping review aimed to explore how social media is used by health researchers professionally, as reported in the literature.MethodsThe scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al was used. Comprehensive searches based on the concepts of health research and social media were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases, with no limitations applied. Articles were screened at the title and abstract level and at full text by two reviewers. One reviewer extracted data that were analyzed descriptively to map the available evidence.ResultsA total of 8359 articles were screened at the title and abstract level, of which 719 were also assessed at full text for eligibility. The 414 articles identified for inclusion were published in 278 different journals. Studies originated from 31 different countries, with the most prevalent being the United States (52.7% [218/414]). The health discipline of the first authors varied, with medicine (33.3% [138/414]) being the most common. A third of the articles covered health generally, with 61 health-specific topics. Papers used a range of social media platforms (mean 1.33 [SD 0.7]). A quarter of the articles screened reported on social media use for participant recruitment (25.1% [104/414]), followed by practical ways to use social media (15.5% [64/414]), and use of social media for content analysis research (13.3% [55/414]). Articles were categorized as celebratory (ie, opportunities for engagement, 72.2% [299/414]), contingent (ie, opportunities and possible limitations, 22.7% [94/414]) and concerned (ie, potentially harmful, 5.1% [21/414]).ConclusionsHealth researchers are increasingly publishing on their use of social media for a range of professional purposes. Although most of the sentiment around the use of social media in health research was celebratory, the uses of social media varied widely. Future research is needed to support health researchers to optimize their social media use.
| S-EPMC6881779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCommunication during consultations between referring and consultant physicians is often cited as a source of adverse events, medical error and professional incivility. While existing literature focuses on the role of referring physicians, few studies acknowledge the role of consultant physicians in enhancing communication during consultations. This scoping review aims to identify and synthesise available recommendations to enhance the communication practices of consultants during real-time consultations.DesignA scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.Data sourcesMedline, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to August 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEnglish-language publications which describe recommendations, strategies or frameworks to improve the communication practices of consultant physicians during real-time consultations with referring physicians.Data extraction and synthesisThe search strategy included the following concepts: consultation, physician, communication, interprofessional relations and best practice. Two authors independently performed each phase of title and abstract screening, full-text review and data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. Extracted data were iteratively analysed and summarised thematically.ResultsSixteen publications met the inclusion criteria. Synthesis of available recommendations identified organisation, expertise and interpersonal skills as three overarching and interconnected dimensions of communication demonstrated by consultants during effective consultations. Twelve studies identified interpersonal skills as being critical in alleviating the widespread professional incivility that is reported during consultations. Existing recommendations to improve the communication practices of consultants are limited as they lack standardised interventions and fail to comprehensively address all three elements identified in this review.ConclusionThis scoping review synthesises available recommendations to improve the communication practices of consultant physicians during real-time consultations. An opportunity exists to develop communication tools or educational interventions based on the findings of this review to enhance interphysician consultation encounters.
| S-EPMC10668268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective use of genetic and genomic data in cancer prevention and treatment depends on adequate communication with patients and the public. Although relevant empirical work has emerged, the scope and outcomes of this communication research have not been characterized. We conducted a comprehensive scoping review of recent published research (2010-2017) on communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic testing (CGT) information. Searches in six databases revealed 9243 unique records; 513 papers were included. Most papers utilized an observational quantitative design; fewer utilized an experimental design. More attention has been paid to outcomes of CGT results disclosure than to decision making regarding CGT uptake or the process of results disclosure. Psychosocial outcomes were most common across studies. This literature has a strong focus on BRCA1/2, with few papers focused on Lynch syndrome or next-generation technologies. Women, Caucasians, older adults, and those of higher socioeconomic status were overrepresented. Research gaps identified include the need for studies on the process of CGT communication; examining behavioral, decision making, and communication outcomes; and inclusion of diverse populations. Addressing these gaps can help improve the use of genomics in cancer control and reduce disparities in access to and use of CGT.
| S-EPMC7725534 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Research on disparities in traumatic injury has not been well characterized, limiting understanding of gaps in research and development of successful interventions. We conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesize research on disparities in intentional and unintentional traumatic injuries. Methods: The review was guided by PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL and systematic reviews from 2007 to 2017 were searched. Eligible articles were peer reviewed; conducted in the United States; and reported on clearly defined physical trauma and disparity, defined by Cochrane PROGRESS-Plus criteria. One reviewer assessed article titles and a second reviewer validated the inclusion with a random sample. Abstract and full-text review by two reviewers determined final inclusion. Results: Of 7382 unique articles screened, 653 articles were included; inter-rater agreement was high (K=0.995). Studies reported on disparities in the acute hospital setting (104) or postacute/rehabilitation (86), with fewer focused on prevention (57) and policy development (6). Research methods used were quantitative (593) with 25 intervention studies, qualitative (45), qualitative/quantitative (7), and community-based participatory research (8). Age ranges of included studies were all ages (124), adults (318), pediatric/youth/adolescents (172), and older adults (40). Racial disparities were most commonly measured (439 studies); 38 created a white/nonwhite binary. Other commonly measured disparities were place of residence (122), insurance (111 studies), gender (89), age (75), and socioeconomic status measures (61). Disparities were noted in all of the categories. Studies commonly aggregated all types of traumatic injuries (129) or all types of violence (105). Conclusions: The extant injury literature lacks research on prevention and policy to address disparities. Many studies aggregated types of trauma and patient groups, preventing an understanding of distinctions between groups and potential interventions. Intervention and community-based research strategies were limited. Future research can better specify measurement of understudied equity categories, trauma types and intent, and racial groups.
| S-EPMC6798805 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCommunication is an integral part of life and of nurse-patient relationships. Effective communication with patients can improve the quality of care. However, the specific communication needs of older adults can render communication between them and nurses as less effective with negative outcomes.MethodsThis scoping review aims at describing the type of nonverbal communication used by nurses to communicate with older adults. It also describes the older adults' perceptions of nurses' nonverbal communication behaviors. It followed (Int J Soc Res 8: 19-32, 2005) framework. Grey literature and 11 databases were systematically searched for studies published in English and French, using search terms synonymous with nonverbal communication between nurses and older adults for the period 2000 to 2019.ResultsThe search revealed limited published research addressing nonverbal communication between older adults and nurses. The studies eligible for quality assessment were found to be of high quality. Twenty-two studies were included and highlighted haptics, kinesics, proxemics, and vocalics as most frequently used by nurses when communicating with older adults; while studies showed limited use of artefacts and chronemics. There was no mention of nurses' use of silence as a nonverbal communication strategy. Additionally, there were both older adults' positive and negative responses to nurses' nonverbal communication behaviors.ConclusionNurses should be self-aware of their nonverbal communication behaviors with older adults as well as the way in which the meanings of the messages might be misinterpreted. In addition, nurses should identify their own style of nonverbal communication and understand its modification as necessary in accordance with patient's needs.
| S-EPMC7298765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCo-production is a collaborative approach to service user involvement in which users and researchers share power and responsibility in the research process. Although previous reviews have investigated co-production in mental health research, these do not typically focus on psychosis or severe mental health conditions. Meanwhile, people with psychosis may be under-represented in co-production efforts. This scoping review aims to explore the peer-reviewed literature to better understand the processes and terminology employed, as well as the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes of co-production in psychosis research.MethodsThree databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO) using terms and headings related to psychosis and co-production. All titles, abstracts and full texts were independently double-screened. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Original research articles reporting on processes and methods of co-production involving adults with psychosis as well as barriers, facilitators, and/or outcomes of co-production were included. Data was extracted using a standardised template and synthesised narratively. Joanna Briggs Institute and the AGREE Reporting Checklist were used for quality assessment.ResultsThe search returned 1243 references. Fifteen studies were included: five qualitative, two cross-sectional, and eight descriptive studies. Most studies took place in the UK, and all reported user involvement in the research process; however, the amount and methods of involvement varied greatly. Although all studies were required to satisfy INVOLVE (2018) principles of co-production to be included, seven were missing several of the key features of co-production and often used different terms to describe their collaborative approaches. Commonly reported outcomes included improvements in mutual engagement as well as depth of understanding and exploration. Key barriers were power differentials between researchers and service users and stigma. Key facilitators were stakeholder buy-in and effective communication.ConclusionsThe methodology, terminology and quality of the studies varied considerably; meanwhile, over-representation of UK studies suggests there may be even more heterogeneity in the global literature not captured by our review. This study makes recommendations for encouraging co-production and improving the reporting of co-produced research, while also identifying several limitations that could be improved upon for a more comprehensive review of the literature.
| S-EPMC10466887 | biostudies-literature