Inclusive approaches to involvement of community groups in health research: the co-produced CHICO guidance

被引:6
|
作者
Jameson C. [1 ,2 ]
Haq Z. [3 ]
Musse S. [4 ]
Kosar Z. [4 ]
Watson G. [5 ]
Wylde V. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Bristol
[2] NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol
[3] Dhek Bhal, Wellspring Settlement, Barton Hill, Bristol
[4] My Friday Coffee Morning – Barton Hill, University of Bristol micro campus, Barton Hill, Bristol
[5] Malcolm X Elders, Malcolm X Community Centre, St Pauls, Bristol
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
Community groups; Diversity; Ethnic groups; Guidance; Health research; Involvement;
D O I
10.1186/s40900-023-00492-9
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Racially marginalised groups are underserved in healthcare and underrepresented in health research. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) is established as the method to ensure equity in health research. However, methods traditionally employed in PPIE can lead to the exclusion of some communities and exacerbation of existing inequalities, highlighting the need to develop inclusive processes for more inclusive community involvement in health research. We aimed to produce guidance to promote good practice for inclusive involvement of racially marginalised community groups in health research via public and community involvement and engagement. Methods: The CHecklist for Inclusive COmmunity involvement in health research (CHICO) was co-produced by researchers and three Bristol-based community organisations: Dhek Bhal, My Friday Coffee Morning—Barton Hill, and Malcolm X Elders. After initial conversations and link building with community leaders to develop relationships, researchers attended at least three meetings with each community group to discuss preferred approaches to involvement. Each community group had a different format, and discussions were open and tailored to fit the groups preferences. The meetings were held in the community groups’ usual meeting venue. Notes from meetings were reviewed by researchers to identify key themes, which were used to inform the creation of a draft illustration which was then taken back to the community groups for refinement and used to inform the development of written guidance and the final illustration. Results: Checklist items were structured into three stages: (1) building relationships, (2) reciprocal relationships and (3) practicalities. Stage 1 highlights the importance of building trust with the community group over time through regular visits to community venues and talking to people informally to understand the history of the group, their preferences and needs, and topics that are likely to be of interest to them. Stage 2 focusses on maintaining a reciprocal relationship and understanding how to best to give back to the community. Stage 3 provides guidance on the practicalities of designing and running inclusive community-based involvement activities, including consideration of the venue, format, communication-style, language requirements, social activities, and provision of food. Conclusions: Our co-produced checklist can guide researchers in how to involve people from different ethnicities in health research that is relevant to their community. © 2023, BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Exploratory Evaluation of Co-produced Groups in a Community Psychiatry Organisation in England
    Thorneycroft J.
    Dobel-Ober D.
    Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Mental Health, 2015, 2 (1) : 43 - 50
  • [2] TimeBanking: towards a co-produced solution for power and money issues in inclusive research
    Nind, Melanie
    Armstrong, Alan
    Cansdale, Mal
    Collis, Anne
    Hooper, Clare
    Parsons, Sarah
    Power, Andrew
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2017, 20 (04) : 387 - 400
  • [3] Conceptualising quality in co-produced research
    Howard, Marilyn
    Thomas-Hughes, Helen
    QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, 2021, 21 (05) : 788 - 805
  • [4] Social, cultural and community engagement and mental health: cross-disciplinary, co-produced research agenda
    Fancourt, Daisy
    Bhui, Kamaldeep
    Chatterjee, Helen
    Crawford, Paul
    Crossick, Geoffrey
    DeNora, Tia
    South, Jane
    BJPSYCH OPEN, 2020, 7 (01):
  • [5] Community co-produced mental health initiatives in rural Australia: A scoping review
    De Cotta, Tracy
    Knox, Jasmine
    Farmer, Jane
    White, Carolynne
    Davis, Hilary
    AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH, 2021, 29 (06) : 865 - 879
  • [6] Identity and power in co-produced activist research
    Kara, Helen
    QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, 2017, 17 (03) : 289 - 301
  • [7] Managing sensitive relations in co-produced planning research
    O'Hare, Paul
    Coaffee, Jon
    Hawkesworth, Marian
    PUBLIC MONEY & MANAGEMENT, 2010, 30 (04) : 243 - 250
  • [8] The world cafe is an unmethod within co-produced research
    Monforte, Javier
    Netherway, Jake
    Smith, Brett
    QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2023, 20 (03) : 398 - 419
  • [9] Poverty insights for policy from co-produced research
    Xavier Godinot
    Bruno Tardieu
    Robert Walker
    Nature, 2019, 571 (7764) : 174 - 174
  • [10] Power to the people? A co-produced critical review of service user involvement in mental health professions education
    Csilla Kalocsai
    Sacha Agrawal
    Lee de Bie
    Michaela Beder
    Gail Bellissimo
    Suze Berkhout
    Andrew Johnson
    Nancy McNaughton
    Terri Rodak
    Kim McCullough
    Sophie Soklaridis
    Advances in Health Sciences Education, 2024, 29 : 273 - 300