| Literature DB >> 29270313 |
Emma Lowrie1, Rachel Tyrrell-Smith1.
Abstract
PLAIN ENGLISHEntities:
Keywords: Co-production; Community development; Community engaged research; Early child development; Public involvement
Year: 2017 PMID: 29270313 PMCID: PMC5733929 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-017-0078-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Res Involv Engagem ISSN: 2056-7529
Community-Engaged Research principles
| Research Stage | Community-Engaged Research Principles | How Principle Used |
|---|---|---|
| Research Objective | Community input in identifying locally relevant issues and understanding priorities and assets | Aim of research to develop a toolkit to allow for identification of local priorities |
| Study Design | Researchers work with the community to ensure the study design is feasible and culturally acceptable in terms of content | Development of study design – Phase 2 |
| Recruitment & Retention | Researchers consult with community representatives on recruitment and retention strategies | Local professionals and parents consulted on recruitment strategies in Phase 2 |
| Instrument Design | Instruments adopted from other studies are tested/adapted to fit local populations and their needs | Community involvement involved in method development in Phases 1 and 2 |
| Data Collection | Community members involved in some aspects of data collection, gaining skills and knowledge of research methods | Some parents ( |
| Analysis & Interpretation | Researchers share the results of the analysis with community members for comments and interpretation | Yes, not reported in this paper |
| Dissemination | Results disseminated in community venues as well as in peer reviewed journals and presented to frontline workers with community support | Yes, not reported in this paper |
| Further Commitment | A continued partnership between researchers and the community to use findings to advocate for change, enhance local resources and improve local practice | Continued community engagement and promising sense of partnership and shared understanding |
Participant demographic information (Phase 3)
| Frequency (n) | Percentage (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Female | 175 | 91.2 |
| Male | 17 | 8.9 | |
| Single Parent | No | 134 | 72.4 |
| Yes | 51 | 27.6 | |
| Age | Under 20 years | 2 | 1.1 |
| 20–24 years | 31 | 16.3 | |
| 25–29 years | 54 | 28.4 | |
| 30–34 years | 41 | 21.6 | |
| Over 35 years | 62 | 32.6 | |
| Employment Status | Employed | 93 | 48.4 |
| Unemployed | 99 | 51.6 | |
| Number of Children | None | 3 | 1.6 |
| One | 52 | 27.8 | |
| Two | 65 | 34.8 | |
| Three | 36 | 19.3 | |
| Four | 13 | 7.0 | |
| Five or more | 18 | 9.6 | |
| Age of Youngest Child | Pregnant | 12 | 6.5 |
| Under 6 months | 16 | 8.7 | |
| 6–12 months | 26 | 14.1 | |
| 12–24 months | 37 | 20.0 | |
| 2 years | 24 | 13.0 | |
| 3 years | 15 | 8.1 | |
| 4 years | 14 | 7.6 | |
| 5 years or over | 41 | 22.2 |
Professional feedback on three traditional research methods
| Method | Positive | Negative |
|---|---|---|
| Q-Methodology | Will elicit a good understanding of community views of factors associated with early child health and development. | Too many statements will be challenging in a low literacy population. It will require a lot of work in a short time frame. |
| Good grid structure, simple and clear to understand. | Need additional software for analysis (Uses R-Methodology). | |
| “Think-out-loud” protocol is desirable. It allows for the reasoning behind factor placement to be captured. | Data analysis groups participants according to similar viewpoints not exploratory in nature. | |
| Rank Order Methods | Less complex data analysis than Q-methodology. Useful for initial instrument development. | No grid. It does not allow for any topics to be given an equal weighting. |
| Easy to understand. There is a simple linear structure associated with priority or preference ranking. | Not as interesting or engaging as the other two research methods for participants. We want them to want to take part in future projects. | |
| Photo-Elicitation | Less text, images allow for individuals own interpretation of the aim. As the study is exploratory this may be helpful. | Less stringent research method. Will data gained still be worthwhile with a lack of numerical data. |
| Images generally make difficult topics more accessible and easier to discuss. Broaching them is less probing than asking direct questions. | Timeline too short to allow participants to take their own photos (i.e. Photo-Voice). Images would need to be pre-generated. |
Fig. 1a Traditional Q-Grid. b Modified Photo Q-Grid