Dataset Information

Incorporating and evaluating citizen engagement in health research: a scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Citizen engagement in research is an emerging practice that involves members of the general public in research processes such as priority setting, planning, decision-making, research conduct, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination. Engaging citizens in research, particularly health research, increases the relevance of study findings, minimizes waste by facilitating stewardship over resources, and builds public trust in the research. While several existing frameworks guide the application of citizen engagement principles to health research, it is unclear how citizen engagement can be utilized to maximize benefits and minimize risks and challenges in health research. To address the gaps in knowledge around citizen engagement in health research, we propose a scoping review to synthesize the state of knowledge on methods to incorporate and evaluate citizen engagement in research. A protocol is presented in this manuscript.

Methods

The methodology for our scoping review is guided by Arksey and O' Malley's framework for scoping reviews, and additional recommendations by Levac and colleagues. We will include peer-reviewed and gray literature that report on citizen engagement in health research (including biomedical, clinical, health systems and services, and social, cultural, environmental and population health) and report method(s) to conduct, measure, or evaluate citizen engagement. We will systematically search electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, JSTOR, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Science Direct) from inception onwards and search relevant organizations' websites for additional studies, frameworks, and reports on citizen engagement. Title and abstract and full-text citations will be screened independently and in duplicate. Data will be extracted independently and in duplicate, including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and outcomes of citizen engagement (e.g., barriers, facilitators).

Discussion

This review will synthesize the definitions, goals, methods, outcomes, and significance of citizen engagement in health research, as well as any potential barriers, facilitators, and challenges outlined in existing literature. The findings will provide an evidence-based foundation for developing new or improved guidance for citizen engagement in health research. Overall, we anticipate that our scoping review will be a preliminary step to meaningful engagement of citizens in research and strengthen the relationship between the scientific community and the public through transparency and collaboration.

Systematic review registration

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/hzcbr .

SUBMITTER: Shahid A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8480041 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Literature on healthcare reforms highlights the importance of physician engagement, suggesting that it is a critical factor for lowering costs while improving efficiency, quality of care, patient safety, physician satisfaction and retention. As a result, many hospitals have adopted physician engagement as a top strategic priority, but little is known about the actual evidence, making it difficult for hospital leadership to identify relationships between true physician 'work engagement' and work outcomes. The aim of this scoping review is to identify factors associated with, and tools used to measure, physician engagement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This scoping review will be conducted as per Arksey and O'Malley (2005). The electronic databases that will be searched from inception onwards include MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Grey literature will be searched via websites of relevant agencies such as Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Conferences and abstracts will be viewed and full paper requests made as required. Supplementary articles may be obtained by contacting field experts and searching references of relevant articles. All quantitative and qualitative study designs will be eligible that describe factors associated with, and tools used to measure, hospital physician engagement. After a small calibration exercise, screening and abstraction will be completed separately by two individuals, with discrepancies resolved by a third. Quantitative (frequencies) and qualitative analyses (generation of descriptives) will be conducted. Thematic analysis will be used to evaluate and categorise study findings. IMPLICATIONS AND DISSEMINATION:This project is part of the Ontario Hospital Association's (OHA) initiative to improve its understanding of physician engagement. The review findings will be shared with all Ontario hospitals. Dissemination will occur through peer-reviewed publications and to the OHA membership through the OHA Learning and Engagement team.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is evidence that the use of some reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials, is associated with improved completeness of reporting in health research. However, the current levels of adherence to reporting guidelines are suboptimal. Over the last few years, several actions aiming to improve compliance with reporting guidelines have been taken and proposed. We will conduct a scoping review of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research that have been evaluated or suggested, in order to inform future interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Our review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. We will search for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Moreover, we will carry out lateral searches from the reference lists of the included studies, as well as from the lists of articles citing the included ones. One reviewer will screen the full list, which will be randomly split into two halves and independently screened by the other two reviewers. Two reviewers will perform data extraction independently. Discrepancies will be solved through discussion. In addition, this search strategy will be supplemented by a grey literature search. The interventions found will be classified as assessed or suggested, as well as according to different criteria, in relation to their target (journal policies, journal editors, authors, reviewers, funders, ethical boards or others) or the research stage at which they are performed (design, conducting, reporting or peer review). Descriptive statistical analysis will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:A paper summarising the findings from this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This scoping review will contribute to a better understanding and a broader perspective on how the problem of adhering better to reporting guidelines has been tackled so far. This could be a major first step towards developing future strategies to improve compliance with reporting guidelines in health research.

Project description:IntroductionPsychiatric nurses face various stressors related to nurse-patient relationships, workplace interpersonal relationships and organisational problems, and are required to perform excellent work under stressful situations. As work engagement (a counterconcept of burnout) is a key factor that improves the performance of nurses, clarifying how to improve work engagement is an essential topic among researchers. Although some knowledge has been accumulated on the subject, no reviews have been conducted on the work engagement of psychiatric nurses. To fill the gap, this scoping review will examine the status of research activity on the work engagement of psychiatric nurses and identify related factors, consequently mapping the available research in this area.Methods and analysisThe review will be conducted according to established scoping review methodological guidelines. The inclusion criteria will be based on nurses (participants), work engagement (concept), and psychiatric settings (context) without language or date restrictions. Regardless of the methodology or study design, research related to the work engagement of psychiatric nurses will be included. A systematic search will be conducted for MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycINFO, with the searches being arranged by an information specialist through discussion. The first author will screen all potentially relevant publications, and the second author will independently screen a random sample comprising 10% of the manuscripts. Any disagreement will be resolved by a review team. Data will be extracted using a standardised extraction form, subsequently summarised through quantitative (frequencies) and qualitative analyses (narrative synthesis), and reported in the results of the review.Ethics and disseminationAs the data will be collected from existing literature, ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. They are expected to help researchers enhance psychiatric nurses' work engagement, consequently contributing to improving their performance.

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.