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:Citizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research. In this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods). Our search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value. We found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research. Two citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings. Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

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:IntroductionSchool environments are an essential setting to shape and influence the health and well-being of students. Health promoting school (HPS) is a whole-school approach that strengthens and builds a safe and healthy school environment for students to learn and develop. A core component of HPS is the meaningful participation of youth. Despite promising outcomes arising from youth engagement in school health promotion, there is less known on the process of how students are involved in school health promotion and in what form. This scoping review will explore and map the different components of the student engagement process in school health promotion with specific focus on whole-school approaches like HPS.Methods and analysisWe will follow scoping review guidelines employed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We will use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews to guide reporting. We will follow the PCC mnemonic (participant, concept and context) to develop eligibility criteria. Both published and unpublished literature will be included. Databases to be searched include: CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global databases and Google Scholar. Relevant organisational websites and sources identified by experts will also be reviewed. Two reviewers will screen the title, abstract and full text of the sourced articles. Data from included articles will be charted using a data charting tool. The socioecological model and Hart's Ladder of Participation will be used to guide charting. Descriptive analysis will be conducted for quantitative data, and thematic analysis will be employed for qualitative data. Data will be displayed through tables and narrative descriptions.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required for this study. To disseminate our work, we plan to develop an open-access publication, accompanied by a conference presentation and other knowledge translation products.

Project description:ObjectiveTo count and describe the elements that overlap (ie, present in two or more) and diverge between models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Our specific research question was 'what are the elements that underlie models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research?'DesignScoping review.Data sourcesOn 6-7 July 2021, we searched six electronic databases (ie, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Evidence Based Practice Database, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus) and Google Scholar for published literature, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Google, and key agencies' websites for unpublished (ie, grey) literature, with no date restrictions. These searches were supplemented by snowball sampling.Eligibility criteriaWe included published and unpublished literature that presented (a) models or frameworks (b) of patient engagement (c) in health services research. We excluded articles unavailable as full text or not written in English.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers extracted data from included articles using an a priori developed standardised form. Data were synthesised using both quantitative (ie, counts) and qualitative (ie, mapping) analyses.ResultsWe identified a total of 8069 articles and ultimately included 14 models and frameworks in the review. These models and frameworks were comprised of 18 overlapping and 57 diverging elements, that were organised into six conceptual categories (ie, principles, foundational components, contexts, actions, levels and outcomes) and spanned intrapersonal, interpersonal, process, environmental, and health systems and outcomes domains.ConclusionsThere is little overlap between the elements that comprise existing models and frameworks of patient engagement in health services research. Those seeking to apply these models and frameworks should consider the 'fit' of each element, by conceptual category and domain, within the context of their study.

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.

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.