Porchak Emily, Graham Ian D, Presseau Justin, Kothari Anita
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
BMC Public Health. 2025 May 30;25(1):2001. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-23149-6.
We aimed to understand and evaluate the types, experiences and levels of engagement of all groups engaged in the OPTimise research study. The OPTimise study used virtual community engagement to engage equity-deserving populations across three sites to help public health units tailor strategies to improve vaccine uptake during COVID-19. Our evaluation was uniquely conducted at arm's length from the OPTimise researchers who facilitated the virtual engagement with these groups.
The community members involved in research (community leaders and citizen partners) were invited to complete the 22-item Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) survey to understand the nature of engagement. Twenty-three participants were invited to complete the survey and 19 (83%) completed the survey. We conducted individual and focus group interviews with members of all four groups (community leaders, citizen partners, public health unit knowledge user and connectors, and methods researchers) to learn about their engagement experiences with the OPTimise study and research team. Thirty-five participants were invited to join an interview or focus group interview with 22 (63%) completing an interview.
OPTimise study members reported "extremely meaningful" engagement which is the highest level on the PEIRS-22 scale. The interviews demonstrated that the OPTimise study was designed appropriately across the three sites. Interviews were analyzed based on four topics: relationship management, supporting processes, power sharing, and satisfaction with operations. Qualitative and quantitative data are compared to the Levels of Patient and Researcher Engagement in Health Research framework. Citizen partners and methods researchers reported being engaged at the level of "lead" on the framework. Community leaders reported their level of engagement as at the level of "involve" throughout the study while connectors and public health knowledge users reported their level of engagement was at the level of "involve episodically" throughout the study.
This evaluation found that building authentic relationships between the OPTimise research team and participants was key in the early phases of the OPTimise study. Researchers on future projects could benefit from developing working relationships with organizations who can connect with the target audience to facilitate trust building between researchers and engagement participants, especially in virtual environments.
我们旨在了解和评估参与“优化”研究项目的所有群体的类型、经历及参与程度。“优化”研究项目利用虚拟社区参与,在三个地点让应获公平对待的人群参与进来,以帮助公共卫生部门制定策略,提高新冠疫情期间的疫苗接种率。我们的评估是在与促进这些群体进行虚拟互动的“优化”研究人员保持独立的情况下进行的。
邀请参与研究的社区成员(社区领袖和公民伙伴)完成包含22个项目的《患者研究参与量表》(PEIRS - 22)调查,以了解参与的性质。邀请了23名参与者完成该调查,19人(83%)完成了调查。我们对所有四个群体(社区领袖、公民伙伴、公共卫生部门知识使用者和联络人以及方法研究人员)的成员进行了个人访谈和焦点小组访谈,以了解他们参与“优化”研究项目及研究团队的经历。邀请了35名参与者参加访谈或焦点小组访谈,22人(63%)完成了访谈。
“优化”研究项目的成员报告称参与“极其有意义”,这是PEIRS - 22量表上的最高水平。访谈表明,“优化”研究项目在三个地点的设计是恰当的。访谈基于四个主题进行分析:关系管理、支持流程、权力分享以及对运营的满意度。定性和定量数据与《健康研究中患者和研究人员参与水平》框架进行了比较。公民伙伴和方法研究人员报告称在该框架中处于“主导”参与水平。社区领袖报告称在整个研究过程中其参与水平为“参与”,而联络人和公共卫生知识使用者报告称在整个研究过程中其参与水平为“偶尔参与”。
该评估发现,在“优化”研究项目的早期阶段,在“优化”研究团队与参与者之间建立真实的关系是关键。未来项目的研究人员可以从与能够联系目标受众的组织建立工作关系中受益,以促进研究人员与参与互动者之间的信任建立,尤其是在虚拟环境中。