Peter Wilton1, Doreen Neville2, Rick Audas2, Heather Brown3, Roger Chafe4. 1. Public Engagement Advisor, Nova Scotia Health Authority Halifax, NS. 2. Associate Professor, Division of Community Health and Humanities, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL. 3. Vice President, Rural Health, Central Health. 4. Associate Professor, Division of Pediatrics, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the use of in-person focus groups and online engagement within the context of a large public engagement initiative conducted in rural Newfoundland. METHODS: Participants were surveyed about their engagement experience and demographic information. Pre and post key informant interviews were also conducted with organizers of the initiative. RESULTS: Of the 111 participants in the focus groups, 97 (87%) completed evaluation surveys; as did 23 (88%) out of 26 online engagement participants. Overall, focus group participants were positive about their involvement, with 87.4% reporting that they would participate in a similar initiative. Online participation was below expectations and these participants viewed their experience less positively than in-person participants. Organizers viewed the engagement initiative and the combined use of online and in-person engagement positively. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a real-world example of the use of two methods of engagement. It also highlights the importance of the successful execution of whatever engagement mechanism is selected.
BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the use of in-person focus groups and online engagement within the context of a large public engagement initiative conducted in rural Newfoundland. METHODS:Participants were surveyed about their engagement experience and demographic information. Pre and post key informant interviews were also conducted with organizers of the initiative. RESULTS: Of the 111 participants in the focus groups, 97 (87%) completed evaluation surveys; as did 23 (88%) out of 26 online engagement participants. Overall, focus group participants were positive about their involvement, with 87.4% reporting that they would participate in a similar initiative. Online participation was below expectations and these participants viewed their experience less positively than in-personparticipants. Organizers viewed the engagement initiative and the combined use of online and in-person engagement positively. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a real-world example of the use of two methods of engagement. It also highlights the importance of the successful execution of whatever engagement mechanism is selected.