Chu Yang Lin1, Adalberto Loyola-Sanchez2, Kelle Hurd3, Elizabeth D Ferucci4, Louise Crane5, Bonnie Healy6, Cheryl Barnabe7. 1. Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: chuyang@ualberta.ca. 2. Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: adalbert@ualberta.ca. 3. Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Canada. Electronic address: khurd@ucalgary.ca. 4. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, United States. Electronic address: edferucci@anthc.org. 5. Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, Canada. Electronic address: louise@lcrane.ca. 6. Alberta First Nations Information Governance Center, Canada. Electronic address: bonnie.healy@afnigc.ca. 7. Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary and Rheumatologist, Alberta Health Services, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, T2N 4N1, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: ccbarnab@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research adhering to community engagement processes leads to improved outcomes. The level of Indigenous communities' engagement in rheumatology research is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the frequency and level of community engagement reporting in arthritis studies conducted in Australia (AUS), Canada (CAN), New Zealand (NZ) and the United States of America (USA). METHODS: Studies identified through systematic reviews on topics of arthritis epidemiology, disease phenotypes and outcomes, health service utilization and mortality in Indigenous populations of AUS, CAN, NZ and USA, were evaluated for their descriptions of community engagement. The level of community engagement during inception, data collection and results interpretation/dissemination stages of research was evaluated using a custom-made instrument, which ranked studies along the community engagement spectrum (i.e. inform-consult-involve-collaborate-empower). Meaningful community engagement was defined as involving, collaborating or empowering communities. Descriptive analyses for community engagement were performed and secondary non-parametric inferential analyses were conducted to evaluate the possible associations between year of publication, origin of the research idea, publication type and region of study; and meaningful community engagement. RESULTS: Only 34% (n = 69) of the 205 studies identified reported community engagement at ≥ 1 stage of research. Nearly all studies that engaged communities (99% (n = 68)) did so during data collection, while only 10% (n = 7) did so at the inception of research and 16% (n = 11) described community engagement at the results' interpretation/dissemination stage. Most studies provided community engagement descriptions that were assessed to be at the lower end of the spectrum. At the inception of research stage, 3 studies reported consulting communities, while 42 studies reported community consultation at data collection stage and 4 studies reported informing or consulting communities at the interpretation/dissemination of results stage. Only 4 studies described meaningful community engagement through all stages of the research. Inferential statistics identified that studies with research ideas that originated from the Indigenous communities involved were significantly more associated with achieving meaningful community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of Indigenous community engagement in published arthritis studies is limited in frequency and is most frequently described at the lower end of the community engagement spectrum. Processes that support meaningful community engagement are to be promoted.
BACKGROUND: Research adhering to community engagement processes leads to improved outcomes. The level of Indigenous communities' engagement in rheumatology research is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the frequency and level of community engagement reporting in arthritis studies conducted in Australia (AUS), Canada (CAN), New Zealand (NZ) and the United States of America (USA). METHODS: Studies identified through systematic reviews on topics of arthritis epidemiology, disease phenotypes and outcomes, health service utilization and mortality in Indigenous populations of AUS, CAN, NZ and USA, were evaluated for their descriptions of community engagement. The level of community engagement during inception, data collection and results interpretation/dissemination stages of research was evaluated using a custom-made instrument, which ranked studies along the community engagement spectrum (i.e. inform-consult-involve-collaborate-empower). Meaningful community engagement was defined as involving, collaborating or empowering communities. Descriptive analyses for community engagement were performed and secondary non-parametric inferential analyses were conducted to evaluate the possible associations between year of publication, origin of the research idea, publication type and region of study; and meaningful community engagement. RESULTS: Only 34% (n = 69) of the 205 studies identified reported community engagement at ≥ 1 stage of research. Nearly all studies that engaged communities (99% (n = 68)) did so during data collection, while only 10% (n = 7) did so at the inception of research and 16% (n = 11) described community engagement at the results' interpretation/dissemination stage. Most studies provided community engagement descriptions that were assessed to be at the lower end of the spectrum. At the inception of research stage, 3 studies reported consulting communities, while 42 studies reported community consultation at data collection stage and 4 studies reported informing or consulting communities at the interpretation/dissemination of results stage. Only 4 studies described meaningful community engagement through all stages of the research. Inferential statistics identified that studies with research ideas that originated from the Indigenous communities involved were significantly more associated with achieving meaningful community engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of Indigenous community engagement in published arthritis studies is limited in frequency and is most frequently described at the lower end of the community engagement spectrum. Processes that support meaningful community engagement are to be promoted.
Authors: Penny O'Brien; Ryan Prehn; Naz Rind; Ivan Lin; Peter F M Choong; Dawn Bessarab; Juli Coffin; Toni Mason; Michelle M Dowsey; Samantha Bunzli Journal: Res Involv Engagem Date: 2022-08-04