A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research

Abstract

Background Citizen engagement, or partnering with interested members of the public in health research, is becoming more common. While ongoing assessment of citizen engagement practices is considered important to its success, there is little clarity around aspects of citizen engagement that are important to assess (i.e., what to look for) and methods to assess (i.e., how to measure and/ or evaluate) citizen engagement in health research. Methods In this scoping review, we included peer-reviewed literature that focused primarily on method(s) to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research. Independently and in duplicate, we completed title and abstract screening and full-text screening and extracted data including document characteristics, citizen engagement definitions and goals, and methods to measure or evaluate citizen engagement (including characteristics of these methods). Results Our search yielded 16,762 records of which 33 records (31 peer-reviewed articles, one government report, one conference proceeding) met our inclusion criteria. Studies discussed engaging citizens (i.e., patients [n = 16], members of the public [n = 7], service users/consumers [n = 4], individuals from specific disease groups [n = 3]) in research processes. Reported methods of citizen engagement measurement and evaluation included frameworks, discussion-based methods (i.e., focus groups, interviews), survey-based methods (e.g., audits, questionnaires), and other methods (e.g., observation, prioritization tasks). Methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement commonly focused on collecting perceptions of citizens and researchers on aspects of citizen engagement including empowerment, impact, respect, support, and value. Discussion and conclusion We found that methods to measure and/or evaluate citizen engagement in health research vary widely but share some similarities in aspect of citizen engagement considered important to measure or evaluate. These aspects could be used to devise a more standardized, modifiable, and widely applicable framework for measuring and evaluating citizen engagement in research. Patient or public contribution Two citizen team members were involved as equal partners in study design and interpretation of its findings. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/HZCBR).

Methods and measures to evaluate the impact of participatory model building on public policymakers: a scoping review protocol

“…The PRISMA-ScR checklist will be completed to ensure systematic rigour of the scoping review. The primary paper that presents results from the review will discuss findings within the context of the participatory model building literature, as well as broader literatures related to the measurement and impact of public participation in policymaking processes 31–33…”

Involving parents of children treated for cancer in Sweden as public contributors to inform the design and conduct of an evaluation of internet-administered self-help for parents of children treated for cancer: a protocol

“…In addition, despite an increasing number of reviews highlighting the impact and benefits of public contribution [ 3 – 7 ], the evidence base is limited by poor and inconsistent reporting [ 3 , 14 , 15 ]. There is also a lack of standardized guidance on how to evaluate public contribution [ 16 ]. The existing evidence base is criticized for lack of scientific rigor concerning evaluation tools [ 17 ] with existing tools failing to capture the complexity and possible outcomes of public contribution [ 18 ].…”

Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership

“…The evaluation of the impact of public involvement in research [ 7 ] has been criticised because the tools and methods used give precedence to performance indicators that matter to researchers and not to the public [ 8 ]. This is often examined as a one-way exchange of information and does not account for the mutual learning of researchers and public partners.…”