Limits...
Two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: who engages?

Rikkers W, Boterhoven de Haan K, Lawrence D, McKenzie A, Hancock K, Haines H, Christensen D, Zubrick SR - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: The cold calling approach proved an unsuccessful recruitment method, with only two out of a possible 816 telephone respondents attending a Conversation.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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Telethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

ABSTRACT

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.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Most important research area.Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the human capability expansion research areas—early childhood education, language development, childhood obesity, children’s nutrition, and children’s mental health.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4418596&req=5

pone.0125969.g001: Most important research area.Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the human capability expansion research areas—early childhood education, language development, childhood obesity, children’s nutrition, and children’s mental health.

Mentions: Respondents were asked their views about the importance of several human capability expansion research areas: early childhood education, language development, childhood obesity, children’s nutrition, and children’s mental health. Children’s mental health was chosen as the most important area to research (Fig 1) with nearly 26% of people choosing this option compared with 8% for language development.


Two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: who engages?

Rikkers W, Boterhoven de Haan K, Lawrence D, McKenzie A, Hancock K, Haines H, Christensen D, Zubrick SR - PLoS ONE (2015)

Most important research area.Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the human capability expansion research areas—early childhood education, language development, childhood obesity, children’s nutrition, and children’s mental health.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4418596&req=5

pone.0125969.g001: Most important research area.Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the human capability expansion research areas—early childhood education, language development, childhood obesity, children’s nutrition, and children’s mental health.
Mentions: Respondents were asked their views about the importance of several human capability expansion research areas: early childhood education, language development, childhood obesity, children’s nutrition, and children’s mental health. Children’s mental health was chosen as the most important area to research (Fig 1) with nearly 26% of people choosing this option compared with 8% for language development.

Bottom Line: The cold calling approach proved an unsuccessful recruitment method, with only two out of a possible 816 telephone respondents attending a Conversation.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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Telethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

ABSTRACT

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.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus