Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Glob Public Health. 2022 Jul;17(7):1113-1135. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2021.1919734. Epub 2021 May 2.
This review aims to (i) identify and critique existing methods of community engagement for outbreak preparedness and response in high-income settings, and (ii) understand community members' experiences of community engagement, and their views and concerns towards pandemic planning/response.
Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, Embase, PubMed, Global Health, CINAHL Plus and Scopus for publications from 2004 to June 2019. Potential literature was screened using explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research checklist. Those using deliberative approaches were appraised using additional criteria for judging deliberation quality. Thematic synthesis was then conducted.
Primary studies employed participatory research approaches, deliberative forums, interviews/focus groups to engage community members on pandemic planning/response with varying degrees of involvement and methodological rigour. This review indicates such endeavours must take into account instrumental and relational considerations: socioeconomic pressures; agency and capacity; diversity and divergent views; educate, communicate and engage; trust and transparency.
Community engagement for pandemic planning/response requires clear methods, processes and who 'community' constitutes. Instrumental and relational considerations must be addressed concurrently in pandemic planning/response to enhance preparedness for public health emergencies.
本综述旨在：(i) 识别和评价高收入环境中暴发准备和应对的现有社区参与方法；(ii) 了解社区成员对社区参与的体验，以及他们对大流行规划/应对的看法和关切。
根据 PRISMA 指南，通过搜索 Medline、Embase、PubMed、Global Health、CINAHL Plus 和 Scopus，对 2004 年至 2019 年 6 月的出版物进行了系统综述。使用明确的纳入和排除标准筛选潜在文献。使用批判性评估技能计划定性研究清单评估纳入的研究。对于使用审议方法的研究，使用判断审议质量的额外标准进行评估。然后进行主题综合。
主要研究采用参与式研究方法、审议论坛、访谈/焦点小组，让社区成员在大流行规划/应对方面进行不同程度的参与和具有不同方法严谨性的参与。本综述表明，这些努力必须考虑到工具性和关系性考虑因素：社会经济压力；机构和能力；多样性和不同观点；教育、沟通和参与；信任和透明度。
大流行规划/应对中的社区参与需要明确的方法、流程和“社区”的构成。在大流行规划/应对中必须同时处理工具性和关系性考虑因素，以增强对公共卫生突发事件的准备。
