Towards an assessment for organizational participatory research health partnerships: A systematic mixed studies review with framework synthesis

Hamzeh, Joshua; Pluye, Pierre; Bush, Paula Louise; Ruchon, Christian; Vedel, Isabelle; Hudon, Catherine

doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.12.003

Cited by 17 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the growing interest in CBPR theory and practice, researchers have become intent on understanding the concept of trust, recognizing it is significant to the success of all partnerships and especially those that engage underrepresented communities (Dave et al, 2018; Dodgen et al, 2018; Hamzeh et al, 2019; Owen-Smith et al, 2016; Padela et al, 2017; Teufel-Shone et al, 2019). Within these partnerships, success is defined as effective, equitable long-term partnerships (Coombe et al, 2018; King et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Engage for Equity: The Role of Trust and Synergy in Community-Based Participatory Research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships exist as complex, dynamic relationships that incorporate shared decision that supports trust development between communities and academics. Within CBPR, the interest in understanding the concept of trust has grown with the realization that, without trust, CBPR relationships fracture. A barrier to monitoring the trust health of a partnership is the lack of a shared operationalization of the concept, its antecedents, and measurement tools. To address these barriers, a six-category trust typology was created as a developmental theory of trust progress. To advance the theory, this article reports on the quantitative structural elements of the trust typology, identifies variability in trust correlates, and creates an empirical foundation for the trust types. Using Engage for Equity data, trust covariates included measures of synergy, CBPR principles, participation, and influence. Structural equation models were used to assess associations between trust types and the latent constructs measured by the items in each measure. The findings demonstrate that the six trust types generally operate on a continuum. Specifically, it does appear that trust deficit, role-based trust, functional trust, proxy trust, and reflective trust are on a single continuum from low to high. Scale scores for reflective trust and proxy trust were consistently and statistically significantly higher than those for functional trust, role-based, neutral, and trust deficit. These results support the construct validity of the trust typology as representing “higher levels” of trust phases. Due to the dynamic nature of partnerships, regular monitoring of partnership trust types can serve as a proxy for partnership functioning.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Engage for Equity: The Role of Trust and Synergy in Community-Based Participatory Research

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The extent of the development of theory depends on the contextual, theoretical, and process characteristics and on review team challenges (Brunton et al). Examples of framework synthesis utilized to scope or map research for policy and research development are increasingly evident . It is recommended in similar standard‐setting exercises, including both clinical and policy guideline development .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Examples of framework synthesis utilized to scope or map research for policy and research development are increasingly evident. [60][61][62] It is recommended in similar standard-setting exercises, including both clinical and policy guideline development. 59,63 Used in the context of COS development, framework synthesis was employed in the qualitative review to combine and deductively summarize individual study findings.…”

Section: Methodological Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adding value to core outcome set development using multimethod systematic reviews

Brunton

Webbe

Oliver

et al. 2020

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trials evaluating the same interventions rarely measure or report identical outcomes. This limits the possibility of aggregating effect sizes across studies to generate high‐quality evidence through systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. To address this problem, core outcome sets (COS) establish agreed sets of outcomes to be used in all future trials. When developing COS, potential outcome domains are identified by systematically reviewing the outcomes of trials, and increasingly, through primary qualitative research exploring the experiences of key stakeholders, with relevant outcome domains subsequently determined through transdisciplinary consensus development. However, the primary qualitative component can be time consuming with unclear impact. We aimed to examine the potential added value of a qualitative systematic review alongside a quantitative systematic review of trial outcomes to inform COS development in neonatal care using case analysis methods. We compared the methods and findings of a scoping review of neonatal trial outcomes and a scoping review of qualitative research on parents', patients', and professional caregivers' perspectives of neonatal care. Together, these identified a wider range and greater depth of health and social outcome domains, some unique to each review, which were incorporated into the subsequent Delphi process and informed the final set of core outcome domains. Qualitative scoping reviews of participant perspectives research, used in conjunction with quantitative scoping reviews of trials, could identify more outcome domains for consideration and could provide greater depth of understanding to inform stakeholder group discussion in COS development. This is an innovation in the application of research synthesis methods.

show abstract

“…Speci cally, only four studies were coded with the same parent themes for how they conceptualised and operationalised trust. (37,41,43,55) For example, a study by Neu, W (32) conceptualised trust comprehensively incorporating context, relational and complex concept into their conceptualisation of trust, while only tapping into the relational features when operationalising trust. Comparatively, Ferrin et al (42) conceptualised trust only in terms of its relational features, but operationalised trust more comprehensively, including context speci c, relational, and features of social network analysis for the questions and indicators used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"This relationship may also proceed in the inverse direction, such that increased sustainability will lead to increased trust and more collective learning" (43) "Barriers and facilitators to community trust were identi ed by participants and included respect for cultural norms, listening to community members and asking them about their priorities and involving community members in any project or research activity if sustainability is a goal." (48) Legend 1988,1990)."…”

Section: Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualising, Operationalising, and Measuring Trust in Participatory Health Research Networks: a Scoping Review

Gilfoyle

MacFarlane

Salsberg

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere are many described benefits of community-based participatory research (CBPR), such as increased relevance of research for those who must act on its findings. This has prompted researchers to better understand how CBPR functions to achieve these benefits through building sustainable research partnerships. Several studies have identified ‘trust’ as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships, which themselves constitute social networks. Although existing literature discuss trust and CBPR, or trust and social networks, preliminary searches reveal that none link all three concepts of trust, CBPR and social networks. Thus, we present our scoping review to systematically review and synthesize the literature exploring how trust is conceptualised, operationalised, and measured in CBPR and social networks.MethodsThis review follows guidelines from Levac et al, which follow the methodological framework of Arksey and O’Malley. We explored several electronic databases including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PsychINFO. A search strategy was identified and agreed upon by the team in conjunction with a research librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract, then by full-text based on pre-determined exclusion/inclusion criteria. A third reviewer arbitrated discrepancies regarding inclusions/exclusions. A thematic analysis was then conducted to identify relevant themes and sub-themes.Results Based on the 26 extracted references, several key themes and sub-themes were identified which highlighted the complexity and multidimensionality of trust as a concept. Our analysis revealed an additional emergent category that highlighted another important dimension of trust – outcomes pertaining to trust. Further, variation within how the studies conceptualised, operationalised, and measured trust was illuminated. Finally, the multidimensionality of trust provided important insight into how trust operates as a context, mechanism and outcome.ConclusionsFindings provide support for future research to incorporate trust as a lens to explore the social-relational aspects of partnerships and the scope to develop interventions to support trust in partnerships.

show abstract

Towards an assessment for organizational participatory research health partnerships: A systematic mixed studies review with framework synthesis

Cited by 17 publications

References 41 publications

Engage for Equity: The Role of Trust and Synergy in Community-Based Participatory Research

Engage for Equity: The Role of Trust and Synergy in Community-Based Participatory Research

Adding value to core outcome set development using multimethod systematic reviews

Conceptualising, Operationalising, and Measuring Trust in Participatory Health Research Networks: a Scoping Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About