Cargando…

Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess participatory methods for obtaining community views on child health research. BACKGROUND: Community participation in research is recognised as an important part of the research process; however, there has been inconsistency in its implementation and a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rikkers, Wavne, Boterhoven de Haan, Katrina, Lawrence, David, McKenzie, Anne, Hancock, Kirsten, Haines, Hayley, Christensen, Daniel, Zubrick, Stephen R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418596/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25938240
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125969
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to assess participatory methods for obtaining community views on child health research. BACKGROUND: Community participation in research is recognised as an important part of the research process; however, there has been inconsistency in its implementation and application in Australia. The Western Australian Telethon Kids Institute Participation Program employs a range of methods for fostering active involvement of community members in its research. These include public discussion forums, called Community Conversations. While participation levels are good, the attendees represent only a sub-section of the Western Australian population. Therefore, we conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected households to evaluate its effectiveness in eliciting views from a broader cross-section of the community about our research agenda and community participation in research, and whether the participants would be representative of the general population. We also conducted two Conversations, comparing the survey as a recruitment tool and normal methods using the Participation Program. RESULTS: While the telephone survey was a good method for eliciting community views about research, there were marked differences in the profile of study participants compared to the general population (e.g. 78% vs 50% females). With a 26% response rate, the telephone survey was also more expensive than a Community Conversation. The cold calling approach proved an unsuccessful recruitment method, with only two out of a possible 816 telephone respondents attending a Conversation. CONCLUSION: While the results showed that both of the methods produced useful input for our research program, we could not conclude that either method gained input that was representative of the entire community. The Conversations were relatively low-cost and provided more in-depth information about one subject, whereas the telephone survey provided information across a greater range of subjects, and allowed more quantitative analysis.