Two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: Who engages?

W. Rikkers, K.B. De Haan, David Lawrence, Anne Mckenzie, Kirsten Hancock, Hayley Haines, D. Christensen, Stephen Zubrick

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background

Community participation in research is recognised as an important part of the research process; however, there has been inconsistency in its implementation and application in Australia. The Western Australian Telethon Kids Institute Participation Program employs a range of methods for fostering active involvement of community members in its research. These include public discussion forums, called Community Conversations. While participation levels are good, the attendees represent only a sub-section of the Western Australian population. Therefore, we conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected households to evaluate its effectiveness in eliciting views from a broader cross-section of the community about our research agenda and community participation in research, and whether the participants would be representative of the general population. We also conducted two Conversations, comparing the survey as a recruitment tool and normal methods using the Participation Program.

Results

While the telephone survey was a good method for eliciting community views about research, there were marked differences in the profile of study participants compared to the general population (e.g. 78% vs 50% females). With a 26% response rate, the telephone survey was also more expensive than a Community Conversation. The cold calling approach proved an unsuccessful recruitment method, with only two out of a possible 816 telephone respondents attending a Conversation.

Conclusion

While the results showed that both of the methods produced useful input for our research program, we could not conclude that either method gained input that was representative of the entire community. The Conversations were relatively low-cost and provided more in-depth information about one subject, whereas the telephone survey provided information across a greater range of subjects, and allowed more quantitative analysis.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-17
JournalPLoS One
Volume10
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 4 May 2015

Fingerprint

Health
Telephone
Research
community service
methodology
Population
Foster Home Care
research programs
Child Health
quantitative analysis
households
Surveys and Questionnaires
Costs and Cost Analysis
Chemical analysis
Costs

Cite this

@article{f175c7f209d64936a3fca6ce6553c51c,
title = "Two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: Who engages?",
abstract = "BackgroundCommunity participation in research is recognised as an important part of the research process; however, there has been inconsistency in its implementation and application in Australia. The Western Australian Telethon Kids Institute Participation Program employs a range of methods for fostering active involvement of community members in its research. These include public discussion forums, called Community Conversations. While participation levels are good, the attendees represent only a sub-section of the Western Australian population. Therefore, we conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected households to evaluate its effectiveness in eliciting views from a broader cross-section of the community about our research agenda and community participation in research, and whether the participants would be representative of the general population. We also conducted two Conversations, comparing the survey as a recruitment tool and normal methods using the Participation Program.ResultsWhile the telephone survey was a good method for eliciting community views about research, there were marked differences in the profile of study participants compared to the general population (e.g. 78{\%} vs 50{\%} females). With a 26{\%} response rate, the telephone survey was also more expensive than a Community Conversation. The cold calling approach proved an unsuccessful recruitment method, with only two out of a possible 816 telephone respondents attending a Conversation.ConclusionWhile the results showed that both of the methods produced useful input for our research program, we could not conclude that either method gained input that was representative of the entire community. The Conversations were relatively low-cost and provided more in-depth information about one subject, whereas the telephone survey provided information across a greater range of subjects, and allowed more quantitative analysis.",
author = "W. Rikkers and {De Haan}, K.B. and David Lawrence and Anne Mckenzie and Kirsten Hancock and Hayley Haines and D. Christensen and Stephen Zubrick",
year = "2015",
month = "5",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0125969",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "1--17",
journal = "P L o S One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science (PLoS)",
number = "5",

}

Two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: Who engages? / Rikkers, W.; De Haan, K.B.; Lawrence, David; Mckenzie, Anne; Hancock, Kirsten; Haines, Hayley; Christensen, D.; Zubrick, Stephen.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 10, No. 5, 04.05.2015, p. 1-17.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: Who engages?

AU - Rikkers, W.

AU - De Haan, K.B.

AU - Lawrence, David

AU - Mckenzie, Anne

AU - Hancock, Kirsten

AU - Haines, Hayley

AU - Christensen, D.

AU - Zubrick, Stephen

PY - 2015/5/4

Y1 - 2015/5/4

N2 - BackgroundCommunity participation in research is recognised as an important part of the research process; however, there has been inconsistency in its implementation and application in Australia. The Western Australian Telethon Kids Institute Participation Program employs a range of methods for fostering active involvement of community members in its research. These include public discussion forums, called Community Conversations. While participation levels are good, the attendees represent only a sub-section of the Western Australian population. Therefore, we conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected households to evaluate its effectiveness in eliciting views from a broader cross-section of the community about our research agenda and community participation in research, and whether the participants would be representative of the general population. We also conducted two Conversations, comparing the survey as a recruitment tool and normal methods using the Participation Program.ResultsWhile the telephone survey was a good method for eliciting community views about research, there were marked differences in the profile of study participants compared to the general population (e.g. 78% vs 50% females). With a 26% response rate, the telephone survey was also more expensive than a Community Conversation. The cold calling approach proved an unsuccessful recruitment method, with only two out of a possible 816 telephone respondents attending a Conversation.ConclusionWhile the results showed that both of the methods produced useful input for our research program, we could not conclude that either method gained input that was representative of the entire community. The Conversations were relatively low-cost and provided more in-depth information about one subject, whereas the telephone survey provided information across a greater range of subjects, and allowed more quantitative analysis.

AB - BackgroundCommunity participation in research is recognised as an important part of the research process; however, there has been inconsistency in its implementation and application in Australia. The Western Australian Telethon Kids Institute Participation Program employs a range of methods for fostering active involvement of community members in its research. These include public discussion forums, called Community Conversations. While participation levels are good, the attendees represent only a sub-section of the Western Australian population. Therefore, we conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected households to evaluate its effectiveness in eliciting views from a broader cross-section of the community about our research agenda and community participation in research, and whether the participants would be representative of the general population. We also conducted two Conversations, comparing the survey as a recruitment tool and normal methods using the Participation Program.ResultsWhile the telephone survey was a good method for eliciting community views about research, there were marked differences in the profile of study participants compared to the general population (e.g. 78% vs 50% females). With a 26% response rate, the telephone survey was also more expensive than a Community Conversation. The cold calling approach proved an unsuccessful recruitment method, with only two out of a possible 816 telephone respondents attending a Conversation.ConclusionWhile the results showed that both of the methods produced useful input for our research program, we could not conclude that either method gained input that was representative of the entire community. The Conversations were relatively low-cost and provided more in-depth information about one subject, whereas the telephone survey provided information across a greater range of subjects, and allowed more quantitative analysis.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0125969

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0125969

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 1

EP - 17

JO - P L o S One

JF - P L o S One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

ER -