Soliciting views of various communities on health research: a prelude to engagement in specific research projects

Report From the Field: Public Health Equity Through Innovative Multisector Data Sharing

CONTEXT

Data sharing across sectors for the purpose of driving health equity is a particularly innovative yet emerging concept in public health practice and research, although the extent to which public health entities engage in multisector data sharing and initiatives is currently underexplored. This practice report examines the nature and extent to which public health entities are sharing data across sectors in ways that are innovative and supportive of their organizational missions to promote community health equity and well-being.

PROGRAM

As a program office of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Data Across Sectors for Health (DASH) seeks to promote and support data sharing systems leveraged toward equitable improvements to health.

IMPLEMENTATION

We pilot tested, revised, and disseminated the 2021 All In National Inventory, a survey implemented to scan the environment to track progress and challenges in the field of data sharing, and feed lessons learned back into communities to cultivate further public health innovations involving shared data and infrastructure development.

EVALUATION

Use case development, engaging communities to cocreate shared data systems.

DISCUSSION

Findings show public health plays a pivotal role in innovation to share data across sectors to serve as a community health improvement foundation. While public health often leads these initiatives to improve health and promote health equity, national data suggest there is much room for improvement in incorporating equitable data sharing practice.

A systematic review of components of community-based organisation engagement

Community-based organisations (CBOs) are important for eliminating health disparities globally and translating research findings to inform interventions. Engagement is an integral part of partnerships between CBOs and community health researchers and impacts the quality and quantity of any desired outcome. Despite the acknowledged benefits of community-based organisation engagement (CBOE), there are variations in its operationalisation and paucity in the understanding of its use in community-scientific partnerships. To further understand CBOE, the aim of this study was to synthesise published literature relevant to the definitions and applications of CBOE and identify its key components. A systematic search was conducted in March 2017, and updated in June 2017. Keywords were varied to account for international differences in spelling and word usage. Five major databases, MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar, were used to identify potential research studies. A total of 32 studies were included in this review. Following the analysis of the literature, four salient themes emerged as components of CBOE: (1) Need (a consensus between all the parties in a partnership on the importance of a specified project and its proposed benefits to a target community); (2) Partnership Dynamics (the workings of a relationship between a CBO and a scientific/academic stakeholder); (3) Resources (include but are not limited to: personnel, money, work space, expertise and equipment); and (4) Outcomes (products of the partnership). This review provides a foundation for future research in applying CBOE to translational research and interventions. This analysis will assist community health researchers in planning partnerships with CBOs, and make necessary adjustments to improve study outcomes. Appropriate application of the components of CBOE in partnerships will assist researchers in addressing health disparities.

Selective patient and public involvement: The promise and perils of pharmaceutical intervention for autism

BACKGROUND

Guidelines suggest the patient community should be consulted from the outset when designing and implementing basic biomedical research, but such patient communities may include conflicting views. We examined how engagement occurred in one such instance.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to scrutinize patient and public involvement (PPI) by a pan-European biomedical consortium working to develop drugs to treat autism. We aimed to use this as an example to illustrate how PPI has been utilized in biomedical research.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS AND ANALYSIS

Two public events, one in the UK and one in Denmark were conducted as part of the consortium's on-going PPI activities in 2014 and 2015. Sixty-six individuals submitted written comments on the consortium's research after these events. The textual data produced were analysed using a thematic approach. Approximately 71% of respondents reported themselves to be adults on the autism spectrum or parents of children with autism.

RESULTS

The themes identified illustrated major differences between some community concerns and the biomedical research agenda. While treating autism per se. was seen as problematic by some, treating specific co-occurring problems was seen as helpful in some circumstances. The biomedical consortium selected PPI with a limited user viewpoint at its outset and more widely once basic research was on-going.

DISCUSSION

This case illustrates what we term "selective PPI" where only a sympathetic and/or limited patient viewpoint is included. Findings highlight the perils of using selective PPI to legitimise scientific endeavours, and the possibilities for constructive dialogue.

Factors associated with willingness to participate in a vaccine clinical trial among elderly Hispanic patients

A population specific understanding of barriers and facilitators to participation in clinical trials could improve recruitment of elderly and minority populations. We investigated how prior exposure to clinical trials and incentives were associated with likelihood of participation in a vaccine clinical trial through a questionnaire administered to 200 elderly patients in an academic general internal medicine clinic. Wilcoxon signed rank sum test compared likelihood of participation with and without monetary incentives. Logistic regression evaluated characteristics associated with intent to participate in an influenza vaccine trial, adjusted for age, gender, language, and education history. When asked about likelihood of participation if there was monetary compensation, there was a 12.2% absolute increase in those reporting that they would not participate, with a significant difference in the distribution of likelihood before and after mentioning a monetary incentive (Wilcoxon signed rank test, p = 0.001). Those with previous knowledge of clinical trials (54.4%) were more likely to report they would participate vs. those without prior knowledge (OR 2.5, 95% CI [1.2, 5.2]). The study highlights the importance of pre-testing recruitment materials and incentives in key group populations prior to implementing clinical trials.

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 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.