IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0125969.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?

Author

Listed:
  • Wavne Rikkers
  • Katrina Boterhoven de Haan
  • David Lawrence
  • Anne McKenzie
  • Kirsten Hancock
  • Hayley Haines
  • Daniel Christensen
  • Stephen R Zubrick

Abstract

Objective: The aims of this study were to assess participatory methods for obtaining community views on child health research. 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Wavne Rikkers & Katrina Boterhoven de Haan & David Lawrence & Anne McKenzie & Kirsten Hancock & Hayley Haines & Daniel Christensen & Stephen R Zubrick, 2015. "Two Methods for Engaging with the Community in Setting Priorities for Child Health Research: Who Engages?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125969
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125969
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125969&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0125969?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125969. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.