Oxford Vaccine Group & Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, 34 Broad St, Oxford, OX1 2BD, UK.
School of Public Health, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Road, Bellville, 7535, Republic of South Africa.
BMC Public Health. 2021 Apr 1;21(1):633. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-10348-0.
Community engagement (CE) is a well-established practical and scholarly field, recognised as core to the science and ethics of health research, for which researchers and practitioners have increasingly asked questions about desired standards and evaluation. In infectious disease outbreak contexts, questions may be more complex. However, it is unclear what body of knowledge has been developed for CE specifically as it applies to emerging infectious diseases. This scoping review seeks to describe (1) How CE has been conceptualised and understood; and (2) What conclusions have research teams reached on the effectiveness of CE in these settings, including challenges and facilitators.
We used a scoping review framework by Arksey and O'Malley (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005) to structure our review. We conducted a brainstorming session and initial trial search to inform the protocol, search terms, and strategy. Three researchers discussed, developed and applied agreed screening tools and selection criteria to the final search results. Five researchers used the screening tools to screen abstracts and full text for inclusion by consensus. Additional publications were sought from references of retrieved publications and an expert call for literature. We analysed and reported emerging themes qualitatively.
We included 59 papers from a total of 722 articles derived from our trial and final literature searches, as well as a process of "citation chasing" and an expert call for grey literature. The core material related exclusively to health research trials during the 2014-2016 West Africa Ebola outbreak. We synthesized reports on components of effectiveness of CE to identify and propose three themes as essential elements of effective CE.
While there is a large volume of literature documenting CE activities in infectious disease research settings generally, there are few accounts of effectiveness dimensions of CE. Our review proposes three themes to facilitate the effectiveness of CE initiatives as essential elements of CE activities in infectious diseases studies: (1) Communication towards building collaborative relationships; (2) Producing contextual knowledge; and (3) Learning lessons over time. As there were relatively few in-depth accounts of CE from our literature review, documentation and accounts of CE used in health research should be prioritised.
社区参与(CE)是一个成熟的实践和学术领域,被认为是健康研究的科学和伦理核心,研究人员和从业者越来越多地对所需标准和评估提出了问题。在传染病爆发的背景下,问题可能会更加复杂。然而,目前尚不清楚针对传染病新兴情况,已经开发了哪些特定于 CE 的知识体系。本范围界定综述旨在描述:(1)CE 是如何被概念化和理解的;以及(2)研究团队对这些情况下 CE 的有效性得出了哪些结论,包括挑战和促进因素。
我们使用 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的范围界定综述框架(Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19-32, 2005)来构建我们的综述。我们进行了头脑风暴会议和初步试验搜索,以提供协议、搜索词和策略的信息。三名研究人员讨论、制定并应用了商定的筛选工具和选择标准,对最终搜索结果进行筛选。五名研究人员使用筛选工具,通过共识筛选摘要和全文以确定是否纳入。从检索到的文献的参考文献和专家文献征集渠道中寻找补充出版物。我们对出现的主题进行了定性分析和报告。
我们从试验和最终文献搜索中总共包含了 722 篇文章,另外还有一个“引文追逐”过程和专家征集文献。核心材料仅与 2014-2016 年西非埃博拉疫情期间的健康研究试验有关。我们综合了关于 CE 有效性组成部分的报告,以确定并提出三个主题,作为 CE 的有效要素。
虽然有大量文献记录了传染病研究环境中的 CE 活动,但很少有关于 CE 有效性维度的描述。我们的综述提出了三个主题,以促进 CE 倡议的有效性,作为传染病研究中 CE 活动的基本要素:(1)沟通以建立合作关系;(2)生成背景知识;以及(3)随着时间的推移吸取经验教训。由于我们的文献综述中相对较少的深度描述 CE 的内容,因此应优先记录和说明用于健康研究的 CE。