Producing knowledge together: a participatory approach to synthesising research across a large-scale collaboration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health

Author:

Conte Kathleen P.ORCID,Laycock Alison,Bailie Jodie,Walke Emma,Onnis Leigh-ann,Feeney Lynette,Langham ErikaORCID,Cunningham Frances,Matthews Veronica,Bailie Ross

Abstract

Abstract Background Despite that stakeholder participation in evidence synthesis could result in more useful outcomes, there are few examples of processes that actively involve them in synthesis work. Techniques are needed that engage diverse stakeholders as equal partners in knowledge co-production. The aims of this paper are to describe an innovative participatory process of synthesising a large body of academic research products and compare the findings of the participatory process against two traditional approaches to synthesis: a rapid review and a structured review. Methods First, a rapid synthesis of all research outputs (n = 86) was conducted by researchers with in-depth knowledge of the collaboration’s research. Second, a team of researchers and service providers conducted a structured synthesis of seventy-eight peer-reviewed articles and reports generated by the collaboration. Fifty-five publications were brought forward for further synthesis in part three, a facilitated participatory synthesis. Finally, we explored the value added by the participatory method by comparing findings generated across the three synthesis approaches. Results Twelve researchers and 11 service providers/policy partners—8 self-identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander—participated in two facilitated workshops (totalling 4 h). Workshop activities engaged participants in reviewing publication summaries, identifying key findings, and evoked review, discussion and refinement. The process explicitly linked experiential knowledge to citations of academic research, clearly connecting the two knowledge types. In comparing the findings generated across all three methods we found mostly consistencies; the few discrepancies did not contradict but gave deeper insights into statements created by the other methods. The participatory synthesis generated the most, detailed, and unique findings, and contextual insights about the relevance of the key messages for practice. Conclusion The participatory synthesis engaged stakeholders with diverse backgrounds and skillsets in synthesising a large body of evidence in a relatively short time. The participatory approach produced findings comparable to traditional synthesis methods while extending knowledge and identifying lessons most relevant for the participants who, ultimately, are the end users of the research. This process will interest other large-scale research collaborations seeking to engage stakeholders in evidence synthesis.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference97 articles.

1. Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg JON, Bush PL, Henderson JIM, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: Implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x.

2. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.

3. National Institute for Health Research. Going the extra mile: Improving the nation's health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. 2015. https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/about-us/our-contribution-to-research/how-we-involve-patients-carers-and-the-public/Going-the-Extra-Mile.pdf. Accessed 27 Apr 2023.

4. Green LW, George MA, Daniel M, Frankish CJ, Herbert CP, Bowie WR, et al. Study of participatory research in health promotion: review and recommendations for the development of participatory research in health promotion in Canada. Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada; 1995.

5. Smith RL, Devine S, Preston R. Recommended methodologies to determine Australian Indigenous community members’ perceptions of their health needs: a literature review. Aust J Prim Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1071/py19078.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3