Exploring the Multidimensionality of Trust in Participatory Health Partnerships - A Network Approach

Abstract

IntroductionPrevious studies have identified “trust” as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships in participatory health research, which themselves can represent social networks. A recent review discussed the potential for social network analysis to investigate the development and maintenance of trust and its effects on partnership functioning in participatory health research partnerships. This review also recommended considering a comprehensive, nuanced and multidimensional approach to conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring trust in research partnerships. Thus, this study aims to explore empirically the conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring of trust in a multidimensional manner, approaching each trust dimension as an individual trust network, as well as combined as an overall trust network.MethodsWe sampled the whole network, recruiting from a newly established network of 57 individuals that must collaborate to achieve a common goal. These individuals represented academic, service and community organizations of an existing participatory partnership, the Public and Patient Involvement Ignite Network in Ireland. Of the 57 individuals invited to take part in the study, 75% (n = 43) individuals completed the network survey. A survey about trust was designed based on literature in the area and was administered via Qualtrics. The survey included eight network questions: one on collaboration, and seven on specific dimensions of trust. From this, we constructed a network for each trust dimension. We compared several core network measures of each to identify structural differences between the dimensions of trust. To statistically validate them, we compared them to a random and preferential null model.ResultsAll the networks had a high reciprocity but were decentralized. Key differences were identified across trust dimensions, particularly in terms of integrity and shared values, visions and goals. None of the networks compared well to the null models indicating participants did not randomly or preferentially (based on how much trust they receive for a particular trust dimension) trust other partners.Discussion/ConclusionThis novel empirical social network analysis of trust in a real-world partnership elucidates the nuances and multidimensional nature of trust. This provides support for expanding this research direction to enhance understanding of and interventions for trust in participatory health research.

Community-academic partnerships to embrace and ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in translational science: Evidence of successful community engagement

“…Since its inception, the C-RAC has adhered to seven operationalized [26,27] domains of trust as integral to DEI. These multi-dimensional domains included (1) acknowledging and working to address vulnerability among the community partners to fully understand research, (2) encouraging academic partners to fully explain the nuances and critical phases of the research continuum, (3) enhancing the belief that community partners will act and follow a set of guided principles of research, (4) sharing on values, visions, and goals toward trust-promoting plans and activities, (5) facilitating a set of collaborative tasks based on perceived skill set, expertise, and experience of each partner, (6) ensuring reliability and reciprocity of timely research tasks performed by both partners; and (7) power sharing and co-ownership of partnership activities.…”

Understanding the evolution of trust in a participatory health research partnership: A qualitative study

“…Given the diverse roles and perspectives across the PPI Ignite Network (e.g., Site Leads are exclusively academic partners), inviting seven individuals across each partnership type (i.e., Site Lead, Local Partner and National Partner) helped ensure that we captured diverse opinions. An arrow is shown in the trust dimension network maps 17 if people agreed or strongly agreed with that statement of trust for that individual. This helped us identify the trust relationships between people in a given network, that is, who trusts whom.…”

“…Social network analysis (SNA) provides a set of tools and techniques used to understand these relationships and how these influence behaviour (see File for further information) 14,15 . Gilfoyle et al, 16 proposed using SNA to operationalise trust in PHR partnerships, which was explored in their empirical findings 17 . Specifically, the study 17 explored seven dimensions of trust between National and Local partners in a PHR project in Ireland called the PPI Ignite Network (see setting in Section 2 below).…”

“…Each dimension (see Figure 1 ) had an associated social network question where responses generated a social network map (i.e., a visual representation of the connections among and between people in the PPI Ignite Network). This innovative methodological approach demonstrated by Gilfoyle et al, 17 provided insights that were revealed when exploring trust multidimensionally and over time. Findings from this work identified key differences across the trust dimensions over time and by partnership type but lacked the qualitative inquiry necessary to better understand why the networks evolved in this way.…”

“…14,15 Gilfoyle et al, 16 proposed using SNA to operationalise trust in PHR partnerships, which was explored in their empirical findings. 17 Specifically, the study 17 explored seven dimensions of trust between National and Local partners in a PHR project in Ireland called the PPI Ignite Network (see setting in Section 2 below). These seven dimensions of trust were informed by a scoping review 16 and in collaboration with the Research Advisory Group.…”