Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Health Sciences Building, 155 College Street, Suite 408, Toronto, ON, Canada M5T 3M7.
School of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart Street, Room 205, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 6N5.
Biomed Res Int. 2018 May 14;2018:1519402. doi: 10.1155/2018/1519402. eCollection 2018.
The objective of this paper is to investigate what participatory health research (PHR) can offer implementation research (IR) and vice versa and discuss what health research funders can do to foster the intersection of both fields.
We contrast points of divergence and convergence between IR and PHR. We reflect on whether community engagement is necessary and on the unintended consequences of participation in IR. We describe how a research funder can incentivize PHR in IR.
Participation is encouraged in IR but the nuances of who is involved merit greater attention in IR. PHR and IR differ in emphasis placed on the scale-up of the intervention. However, they share a common interest in generating real-world contextually relevant evidence.
We need to assess whether and how funding practices influence researchers in how they undertake PHR. Researchers need to better account for participatory approaches to ensure that any potentially harmful consequences are described (and better understood so they can be mitigated in the future) and elucidate the ways in which these processes do or do not enable implementation and scale-up of interventions in IR.
本文旨在探讨参与式健康研究（PHR）能为实施研究（IR）带来什么，反之亦然，并讨论健康研究资助者可以做些什么来促进这两个领域的交叉。
我们对比了 IR 和 PHR 的分歧点和交汇点。我们反思了社区参与是否必要，以及参与 IR 可能带来的意外后果。我们描述了研究资助者如何在 IR 中激励 PHR。
IR 鼓励参与，但谁参与的细节值得在 IR 中给予更多关注。PHR 和 IR 对干预措施扩大规模的重视程度不同。然而，它们都有一个共同的兴趣，即在现实背景下生成相关的证据。
我们需要评估资金实践是否以及如何影响研究人员开展 PHR 的方式。研究人员需要更好地考虑参与式方法，以确保描述任何潜在的有害后果（并更好地理解这些后果，以便将来加以缓解），并阐明这些过程在 IR 中如何促进干预措施的实施和扩大规模。
