Search

Context: Previous studies have identified 'trust' as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships in participatory health research (PHR), which themselves constitute social networks. A recent review discussed the potential for social network analysis to investigate the development and maintenance of trust and their effects on partnership functioning in PHR partnerships. This review also recommended considering a comprehensive, nuanced and multidimensional approach to conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring trust in research partnerships. Objective: This study aims to explore empirically the conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring of trust in a multidimensional manner; and approach each trust dimension as an individual trust network, as well as combined as an overall trust network. Study Design and Analysis: We use a sociometric approach, recruiting from a newly established network of 57 individuals that must collaborate to achieve a common goal. A survey was designed based on findings from a scoping review and was administered via Qualtrics. The survey included 8 network questions: 1 on collaboration, and 7 that were found by Gilfoyle et al. (2022), to be important dimensions of trust. From this we construct a multilayer network from each trust dimension. We compare several core network measures for trust dimensions to identify structural differences between the dimensions of trust. To statistically validate them we compare to a random and preferential null model. Setting: Public and Patient Involvement Ignite Network in Ireland Population Studied: 57 individuals represented academic, service and community organizations from the Public and Patient Involvement Ignite Network in Ireland Intervention/Instrument: Social Network Analysis Survey Outcome measures: Individual level measures: in-degree, weighted in-degree and betweenness centrality; Network level measures: average in-degree, clustering coefficient, assortativity, Freeman centralization about the in-degree Results: None of the networks compare well to the null models indicating participants do not randomly or preferentially (based on how much trust they receive for a particular trust dimension) trust other partners. All networks had a high reciprocity for trust dimensions but were decentralized. Key differences were identified across trust dimensions, particularly in terms of integrity and shared values. Conclusion: Findings support exploring trust in a multidimensional way., Presenters Meghan Gilfoyle, MSc, Jon Salsberg, PhD, Miriam McCarthy, Padraig Mac Carron, Anne MacFarlane, PhD, BA, [...]

Introduction: Participatory health research (PHR) as a research paradigm, guides the research process and strives to achieve positive change in society in the interest of people's health. In this scoping review, PHR will be used as an umbrella term considering a wide range of collaborative research approaches in the health context. PHR is conducted 'with' or 'by' those it intends to benefit, as opposed to 'on' and 'for' them. Their involvement throughout the research process seeks to shift power and decision-making from where they traditionally lay within academia toward community, patient and public end-users. Research cannot be truly participatory without concurrently addressing power dynamics within the partnership and power imbalances in decision making. Therefore, power sharing can be defined as a major factor in building effective academic-community collaborations. This scoping review aims to identify, clarify, and map existing literature on power and power sharing in PHR from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Specifically, we will explore how power is conceptualised throughout the literature, and how power and power sharing are applied and addressed in real-life PHR partnerships. Materials and methods: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer's Manual. This scoping review will consider both empirical and non-empirical research that report on understanding power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships. All appropriate studies will be retrieved from the following five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, SocIndex. This review will be limited to articles published in English and from January 1998 to March 2024. As the scoping review aims to capture more than peer-reviewed and published literature, it will also include grey literature such as theses and dissertations, reports, conference proceedings, and editorials. Data from the included literature will be extracted based on the data extraction tool, defined in advance. Ethics and dissemination: As primary data will not be collected, ethical approval is not required to conduct the scoping review. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is one of the most ubiquitous words brought forth by members to describe the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG). People at NAPCRG's Annual Meetings often recount a [...]

Introduction: Advancements in evaluating the impact of participatory health research (PHR) have been made through comprehensive models like the community‐based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model, which provides a useful framework for exploring how context and partnership processes can influence health research design and interventions. However, challenges in operationalising aspects of the model limit our understanding and evaluation of the PHR process. Trust is frequently identified as an important component of the CBPR model, which supports the development of key partnership outcomes, such as partnership synergy. However, trust continues to be limited to a binary view (as present or absent), which is problematic given its inherently dynamic and temporal nature. Study Aim: The aim of this qualitative study is to understand the evolution of trust in the national public and patient involvement (PPI) network in Ireland. Setting and Participants: Participants from the PPI network (n = 15/21) completed a semistructured interview discussing the evolution of trust by reviewing four social network maps derived from a previous longitudinal study. Analysis: Following Braun and Clarke, we used reflexive thematic analysis, to iteratively develop, analyse and interpret our mediated reflection of the data. Results: Participants described the evolution of trust as a function of three contextual factors: (1) the set‐up and organisation of the network, (2) how people work together and (3) reflection on the process and outcomes. Their descriptions across these themes seemed to vary depending on partnership type with National Partners and Site Leads having more opportunities to demonstrate trust (e.g., via leadership roles or more resources), compared to Local. Thus, visibility and the opportunity to be visible, depending on the set‐up and organisation of the network and how people work together, seemingly play an important role in the evolution of trust over time. Based on these findings, we provide important questions for reflection across themes that could be considered for future PHR partnerships. Discussion: Given that the opportunity and visibility to build and maintain trust over time may not be equally available to all partners, it is important to find ways to invest in and commit to equitable relationships as the key to the success (i.e., longevity) of partnerships. We reflect on/offer important implications for those engaging in PHR partnerships and those who fund such research. Patient or Public Contribution: A Research Advisory Group comprising four research partners (representing academic, service and community organisations) from the PPI Ignite Network provided input and approval for the research objectives of this study as well as previously published work informing this study. Informal consultation occurred with members of this group to discuss findings from this study, assisting with the way findings are presented and described, to be accessible for diverse audiences. Two Research Advisory Group members were involved in the interpretation of the results, and one is a co‐author of this manuscript (Zoe Hughes). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When the world paused in 2020, ensnared in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic, many research trainees found themselves re-examining their goals. Barriers to traditional research strategies as well as [...]

To successfully create assistive technologies for persons with dementia, product developers must understand the capacity of people with dementia to use these technologies. Capacity assessment is typically done through user experience research. However, the published literature is bereft of guidelines to conduct optimal user experience research in samples of persons with dementia. We recruited persons with dementia from community-based organizations and private partners to participate in user experience research for an assistive technology platform. After a testing session, we used semi-structured interviews to ask participants about their involvement in the user experience process. We employed an inductive thematic approach to analyze the interview transcripts and draft guidelines to meaningfully engage persons with dementia in user experience research in the future. Ten participants with mild to moderate dementia (6 females, 4 males) participated in the study. Nine participants had previous experience with mobile devices. Thematic analysis yielded three overarching themes: 1) the techniques, approaches and attributes of the interviewer; 2) participants' views on being part of the user experience research process; and 3) specific items to optimize the research process. Resulting guidelines were divided into recommendations for the interviewer specifically, and for the broader research process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on reflections from the North American Primary Care Research Group (NAPCRG) Trainee Committee Pre-Conference Workshop regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and its future in primary care. Topics include the transformative potential of AI in primary care operations and decision-making, concerns about equity and algorithmic biases, and the role of AI in primary care research with an emphasis on interprofessional collaboration and patient involvement.

Introduction: To assess the association between perceived susceptibility of developing cancer and being screened via sigmoidoscopy/colonoscopy and prostate-specific antigen, respectively. Methods: Participants aged 35-69, who resided in Alberta, Canada, were enrolled into the study between 2000 and 2008. We used general linear mixed models, adjusted for age, marital status, work status, education, family history and place of residence, to explore the association. Results: Perceived susceptibility of developing cancer was associated with both screening tests at baseline and a maximum of 14-year follow-up: (i) colorectal cancer screening - adjusted odds ratios were 1.97 (95% CI = 1.52-2.55) per one-unit increase in participants' personal belief in susceptibility to cancer, and 1.03 (95% CI = 1.00-1.04) per one-percent increase in participants' estimate of their own chance of developing cancer; (ii) prostate cancer screening - adjusted odds ratios were 1.36 times greater (95% CI = 1.07-1.72), and 1.02 times higher (95% CI = 1.01-1.03), for each respective perceived susceptibility measure. Conclusion: Health promotion can focus on targeting and heightening personal perceived susceptibility of developing cancer in jurisdictions with low screening rates for colorectal or prostate cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]