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
_version_ 1782369483401199616
author Rikkers, Wavne
Boterhoven de Haan, Katrina
Lawrence, David
McKenzie, Anne
Hancock, Kirsten
Haines, Hayley
Christensen, Daniel
Zubrick, Stephen R.
author_facet Rikkers, Wavne
Boterhoven de Haan, Katrina
Lawrence, David
McKenzie, Anne
Hancock, Kirsten
Haines, Hayley
Christensen, Daniel
Zubrick, Stephen R.
author_sort Rikkers, Wavne
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4418596
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44185962015-05-12 Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages? Rikkers, Wavne Boterhoven de Haan, Katrina Lawrence, David McKenzie, Anne Hancock, Kirsten Haines, Hayley Christensen, Daniel Zubrick, Stephen R. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2015-05-04 /pmc/articles/PMC4418596/ /pubmed/25938240 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125969 Text en © 2015 Rikkers et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Rikkers, Wavne
Boterhoven de Haan, Katrina
Lawrence, David
McKenzie, Anne
Hancock, Kirsten
Haines, Hayley
Christensen, Daniel
Zubrick, Stephen R.
Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?
title Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?
title_full Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?
title_fullStr Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?
title_full_unstemmed Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?
title_short Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?
title_sort two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: who engages?
topic Research Article
url 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
work_keys_str_mv AT rikkerswavne twomethodsforengagingwiththecommunityinsettingprioritiesforchildhealthresearchwhoengages
AT boterhovendehaankatrina twomethodsforengagingwiththecommunityinsettingprioritiesforchildhealthresearchwhoengages
AT lawrencedavid twomethodsforengagingwiththecommunityinsettingprioritiesforchildhealthresearchwhoengages
AT mckenzieanne twomethodsforengagingwiththecommunityinsettingprioritiesforchildhealthresearchwhoengages
AT hancockkirsten twomethodsforengagingwiththecommunityinsettingprioritiesforchildhealthresearchwhoengages
AT haineshayley twomethodsforengagingwiththecommunityinsettingprioritiesforchildhealthresearchwhoengages
AT christensendaniel twomethodsforengagingwiththecommunityinsettingprioritiesforchildhealthresearchwhoengages
AT zubrickstephenr twomethodsforengagingwiththecommunityinsettingprioritiesforchildhealthresearchwhoengages