Dataset Information

A chair at the table: a scoping review of the participation of refugees in community-based participatory research in healthcare.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Refugees often face psychosocial complexity and multi-dimensional healthcare needs. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) methods have been previously employed in designing health programs for refugee communities and in building strong research partnerships in refugee communities. However, the extent to which these communities are involved remains unknown.

Objective

To review the evidence on the involvement of refugees in CBPR processes to inform healthcare research.

Methods

A scoping review was performed, using Arksey & O'Malley's methodological framework. A literature search in Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and Policy File Index for articles published until August 2020 was conducted. Articles were included if they focused on CBPR, had refugee involvement, and discussed healthcare/health policy.

Results

4125 articles were identified in the database searches. After removal of duplicates, 2077 articles underwent title and abstract review by two authors, yielding an inter-reviewer kappa-statistic of 0.85. 14 studies were included in the final analysis. The purpose of CBPR use for 6 (42.9%) of the articles was developing and implementing mental health/social support interventions, 5 (35.7%) focused on sexual and reproductive health interventions, 1 (7.1%) focused on domestic violence interventions, 1 (7.1%) focused on cardiovascular disease prevention and 1 (7.1%) focused on parenting interventions. In terms of refugee involvement in the various stages in the research process, 9 (64.3%) articles reported refugees having a role in the inception of the research, no articles reported including refugees in obtaining funding, all articles included refugees in the design of the research study, 10 (71.4%) articles reported having refugees involved in community engagement/recruitment, 8 (57.1%) articles reported involvement throughout the data collection process, 4 (28.6%) articles reported involvement in data analysis, 6 (42.9%) articles reported having refugees involved in knowledge translation/dissemination and 1 article (7.1%) reported having refugees contribute to scale up initiatives.

Conclusions

CBPR has been identified as a methodology with the potential to make substantial contributions to improving health and well-being in traditionally disenfranchised populations. As the needs of refugee communities are so diverse, efforts should be made to include refugees as partners in all stages of the research process.

SUBMITTER: Filler T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8420006 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:National and international codes of research conduct have been established in most industrialized nations to ensure greater adherence to ethical research practices. Despite these safeguards, however, traditional research approaches often continue to stigmatize marginalized and vulnerable communities. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved as an effective new research paradigm that attempts to make research a more inclusive and democratic process by fostering the development of partnerships between communities and academics to address community-relevant research priorities. As such, it attempts to redress ethical concerns that have emerged out of more traditional paradigms. Nevertheless, new and emerging ethical dilemmas are commonly associated with CBPR and are rarely addressed in traditional ethical reviews. We conducted a content analysis of forms and guidelines commonly used by institutional review boards (IRBs) in the USA and research ethics boards (REBs) in Canada. Our intent was to see if the forms used by boards reflected common CBPR experience. We drew our sample from affiliated members of the US-based Association of Schools of Public Health and from Canadian universities that offered graduate public health training. This convenience sample (n = 30) was garnered from programs where application forms were available online for download between July and August, 2004. Results show that ethical review forms and guidelines overwhelmingly operate within a biomedical framework that rarely takes into account common CBPR experience. They are primarily focused on the principle of assessing risk to individuals and not to communities and continue to perpetuate the notion that the domain of "knowledge production" is the sole right of academic researchers. Consequently, IRBs and REBs may be unintentionally placing communities at risk by continuing to use procedures inappropriate or unsuitable for CBPR. IRB/REB procedures require a new framework more suitable for CBPR, and we propose alternative questions and procedures that may be utilized when assessing the ethical appropriateness of CBPR.

Project description:BackgroundQ-methodology is an approach to studying complex issues of human 'subjectivity'. Although this approach was developed in the early twentieth century, the value of Q-methodology in healthcare was not recognised until relatively recently. The aim of this review was to scope the empirical healthcare literature to examine the extent to which Q-methodology has been utilised in healthcare over time, including how it has been used and for what purposes.MethodsA search of three electronic databases (Scopus, EBSCO-CINAHL Complete, Medline) was conducted. No date restriction was applied. A title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review, was conducted by a team of five reviewers. Included articles were English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles that used Q-methodology (both Q-sorting and inverted factor analysis) in healthcare settings. The following data items were extracted into a purpose-designed Excel spreadsheet: study details (e.g., setting, country, year), reasons for using Q-methodology, healthcare topic area, participants (type and number), materials (e.g., ranking anchors and Q-set), methods (e.g., development of the Q-set, analysis), study results, and study implications. Data synthesis was descriptive in nature and involved frequency counting, open coding and the organisation by data items.ResultsOf the 2,302 articles identified by the search, 289 studies were included in this review. We found evidence of increased use of Q-methodology in healthcare, particularly over the last 5 years. However, this research remains diffuse, spread across a large number of journals and topic areas. In a number of studies, we identified limitations in the reporting of methods, such as insufficient information on how authors derived their Q-set, what types of analyses they performed, and the amount of variance explained.ConclusionsAlthough Q-methodology is increasingly being adopted in healthcare research, it still appears to be relatively novel. This review highlight commonalities in how the method has been used, areas of application, and the potential value of the approach. To facilitate reporting of Q-methodological studies, we present a checklist of details that should be included for publication.

Project description:BackgroundThere are many described benefits of community-based participatory research (CBPR), such as increased relevance of research for those who must act on its findings. This has prompted researchers to better understand how CBPR functions to achieve these benefits through building sustainable research partnerships. Several studies have identified "trust" as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships, which themselves constitute social networks. Although existing literature discusses trust and CBPR, or trust and social networks, preliminary searches reveal that none link all three concepts of trust, CBPR, and social networks. Thus, we present our scoping review to systematically review and synthesize the literature exploring how trust is conceptualised, operationalised, and measured in CBPR and social networks.MethodsThis review follows the guidance and framework of Peters et al. which is underpinned by the widely used framework of Levac and colleagues. Levac and colleagues provided enhancements to the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. We explored several electronic databases including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PsychINFO. A search strategy was identified and agreed upon by the team in conjunction with a research librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract, then by full-text based on pre-determined exclusion/inclusion criteria. A third reviewer arbitrated discrepancies regarding inclusions/exclusions. A thematic analysis was then conducted to identify relevant themes and sub-themes.ResultsBased on the 26 extracted references, several key themes and sub-themes were identified which highlighted the complexity and multidimensionality of trust as a concept. Our analysis revealed an additional emergent category that highlighted another important dimension of trust-outcomes pertaining to trust. Further, variation within how the studies conceptualised, operationalised, and measured trust was illuminated. Finally, the multidimensionality of trust provided important insight into how trust operates as a context, mechanism, and outcome.ConclusionsFindings provide support for future research to incorporate trust as a lens to explore the social-relational aspects of partnerships and the scope to develop interventions to support trust in partnerships.

Project description:The degree to which artificial intelligence healthcare research is informed by data and stakeholders from community settings has not been previously described. As communities are the principal location of healthcare delivery, engaging them could represent an important opportunity to improve scientific quality. This scoping review systematically maps what is known and unknown about community-engaged artificial intelligence research and identifies opportunities to optimize the generalizability of these applications through involvement of community stakeholders and data throughout model development, validation, and implementation. Embase, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases were searched for articles describing artificial intelligence or machine learning healthcare applications with community involvement in model development, validation, or implementation. Model architecture and performance, the nature of community engagement, and barriers or facilitators to community engagement were reported according to PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Of approximately 10,880 articles describing artificial intelligence healthcare applications, 21 (0.2%) described community involvement. All articles derived data from community settings, most commonly by leveraging existing datasets and sources that included community subjects, and often bolstered by internet-based data acquisition and subject recruitment. Only one article described inclusion of community stakeholders in designing an application-a natural language processing model that detected cases of likely child abuse with 90% accuracy using harmonized electronic health record notes from both hospital and community practice settings. The primary barrier to including community-derived data was small sample sizes, which may have affected 11 of the 21 studies (53%), introducing substantial risk for overfitting that threatens generalizability. Community engagement in artificial intelligence healthcare application development, validation, or implementation is rare. As healthcare delivery occurs primarily in community settings, investigators should consider engaging community stakeholders in user-centered design, usability, and clinical implementation studies to optimize generalizability.

Project description:IntroductionA participatory approach to co-creating new knowledge in health research has gained significant momentum in recent decades. This is founded on the described benefits of community-based participatory research (CBPR), such as increased relevance of research for those who must act on its findings. This has prompted researchers to better understand how CBPR functions to achieve these benefits through building sustainable research partnerships. Several studies have identified 'trust' as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships, which themselves constitute social networks. Although existing literature discuss trust and CBPR, or trust and social networks, preliminary searches reveal that none link all three concepts of trust, CBPR and social networks. Thus, we present our scoping review protocol to systematically review and synthesise the literature exploring how trust is conceptualised, operationalised and measured in CBPR and social networks.Methods and analysisThis protocol follows guidelines from Levac et al (Scoping studies: advancing themethodology. Implement Sci 2010;5:69), which follow the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley. This scoping review explores several electronic databases including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and PsychINFO. Grey literature such as theses/dissertations and reports will be included. A search strategy was identified and agreed on by the team in conjunction with a research librarian. Two independent reviewers will screen articles by title and abstract, then by full text based on pre-determined exclusion/inclusion criteria. A third reviewer will arbitrate discrepancies regarding inclusions/exclusions. We plan to incorporate a thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthics is not required for this review specifically. It is a component of a larger study that received ethical approval from the University of Limerick research ethics committee (#2018_05_12_EHS). Translation of results to key domains is integrated through active collaboration of stakeholders from community, health services and academic sectors. Findings will be disseminated through academic conferences, and peer review publications targeting public and patient involvement in health research.

Project description:IntroductionParticipatory health research (PHR) as a research paradigm, guides the research process and strives to achieve positive change in society in the interest of people's health. In this scoping review, PHR will be used as an umbrella term considering a wide range of collaborative research approaches in the health context. PHR is conducted 'with' or 'by' those it intends to benefit, as opposed to 'on' and 'for' them. Their involvement throughout the research process seeks to shift power and decision-making from where they traditionally lay within academia toward community, patient and public end-users. Research cannot be truly participatory without concurrently addressing power dynamics within the partnership and power imbalances in decision making. Therefore, power sharing can be defined as a major factor in building effective academic-community collaborations. This scoping review aims to identify, clarify, and map existing literature on power and power sharing in PHR from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Specifically, we will explore how power is conceptualised throughout the literature, and how power and power sharing are applied and addressed in real-life PHR partnerships.Materials and methodsThis scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer's Manual. This scoping review will consider both empirical and non-empirical research that report on understanding power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships. All appropriate studies will be retrieved from the following five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, SocIndex. This review will be limited to articles published in English and from January 1998 to March 2024. As the scoping review aims to capture more than peer-reviewed and published literature, it will also include grey literature such as theses and dissertations, reports, conference proceedings, and editorials. Data from the included literature will be extracted based on the data extraction tool, defined in advance.Ethics and disseminationAs primary data will not be collected, ethical approval is not required to conduct the scoping review. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.