Uncovering the Benefits of Participatory Research: Implications of a Realist Review for Health Research and Practice

Milbank Quarterly - Tập 90 Số 2 - Trang 311-346 - 2012
Justin Jagosh1, Ann C. Macaulay1, Pierre Pluye1, Jon Salsberg1, Paula Louise Bush1, Jim Henderson1, Erin Sirett1, Geoff Wong2, Margaret Cargo3, Carol P. Herbert4, Sarena D. Seifer5, Lawrence W. Green6, Trisha Greenhalgh2
1Participatory Research at McGill, McGill University
2Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and London School of Medicine and Dentistry
3Social Epidemiology and Evaluation Research Group, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia
4Centre for Studies in Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Western Ontario
5Community-Campus Partnerships for Health
6University of California at San Francisco

Tóm tắt

Context: Participatory research (PR) is the co‐construction of research through partnerships between researchers and people affected by and/or responsible for action on the issues under study. Evaluating the benefits of PR is challenging for a number of reasons: the research topics, methods, and study designs are heterogeneous; the extent of collaborative involvement may vary over the duration of a project and from one project to the next; and partnership activities may generate a complex array of both short‐ and long‐term outcomes.

Methods: Our review team consisted of a collaboration among researchers and decision makers in public health, research funding, ethics review, and community‐engaged scholarship. We identified, selected, and appraised a large‐variety sample of primary studies describing PR partnerships, and in each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used key realist review concepts (middle‐range theory, demi‐regularity, and context‐mechanism‐outcome configurations [CMO]) to analyze and synthesize the data, using the PR partnership as the main unit of analysis.

Findings: From 7,167 abstracts and 591 full‐text papers, we distilled for synthesis a final sample of twenty‐three PR partnerships described in 276 publications. The link between process and outcome in these partnerships was best explained using the middle‐range theory of partnership synergy, which demonstrates how PR can (1) ensure culturally and logistically appropriate research, (2) enhance recruitment capacity, (3) generate professional capacity and competence in stakeholder groups, (4) result in productive conflicts followed by useful negotiation, (5) increase the quality of outputs and outcomes over time, (6) increase the sustainability of project goals beyond funded time frames and during gaps in external funding, and (7) create system changes and new unanticipated projects and activities. Negative examples illustrated why these outcomes were not a guaranteed product of PR partnerships but were contingent on key aspects of context.

Conclusions: We used a realist approach to embrace the heterogeneity and complexity of the PR literature. This theory‐driven synthesis identified mechanisms by which PR may add value to the research process. Using the middle‐range theory of partnership synergy, our review confirmed findings from previous PR reviews, documented and explained some negative outcomes, and generated new insights into the benefits of PR regarding conflicts and negotiation between stakeholders, program sustainability and advancement, unanticipated project activity, and the generation of systemic change.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Arble B., 2006, Brief Report

10.1177/0145445504272602

10.1023/A:1010374512674

10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00214-7

10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.091307.083824

Christopher S., 2007, A Cercival Cancer Community‐Based Participatory Research Project in a Native American Community, Health Education and Behavior

10.2105/AJPH.2007.125757

Chung B., 2006, Talking Wellness: A Description of a Community‐Academic Partnered Project to Engage an African‐American Community around Depression through the Use of Poetry, Film and Photography, Ethnicity & Disease, 16, S1

10.2105/AJPH.2007.119586

10.1086/228943

10.1093/jurban/78.3.519

10.1177/1090198106290396

Farquhar S.A., 2008, Sitting in Different Chairs”: Role of the Community Health Workers in the Poder es Salud/Power for Health Project, Education for Health, 21, 1, 10.4103/1357-6283.101580

Freire P., 1970, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

Gaventa J., 2010, Mapping the Outcomes of Citizen Engagement

10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00329.x

10.1177/109019819802500303

Green L.W., 1986, Advances in Health Education and Promotion, 211

10.1177/152483990000100110

Green L.W., 1995, Review and Recommendations for the Development of Participatory Research in Health Promotion in Canada

10.1177/1524839906292176

Hibbert P., 2008, The Oxford Handook of Inter‐Organizational Relations, 391

Hinton A., 2005, The Community Health Advisor Program and the Deep South Network for Cancer Control: Health Promotion Programs for Volunteer Community Health Advisors, Community Health, 28, 20

10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21028.x

10.1177/1090198106291985

Ismail S., 2009, International Observatory on Health Research Systems

10.1289/ehp.7675

10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173

Jagosh J., 2011, Assessing the Outcomes of Participatory Research: Protocol for Identifying, Selecting, Appraising, and Synthesizing the Literature for Realist Review, Implementation Science, 6, 1

10.1080/14767720303913

Kothari U., 2001, Participation: The New Tyranny?

10.1177/152483990000100109

10.1111/1468-0009.00203

10.4324/9780203195390

Macaulay A.C., 2006, Indigenous Peoples and Diabetes: Community Empowerment and Wellness, 407

Macaulay A.C., 1998, NAPCRG (North American Primary Care Research Group) Policy Statement

10.1136/bmj.319.7212.774

10.1177/1757975910383936

10.1080/13561820400011776

Minkler M., 2008, Community‐Based Participatory Research for Health

10.1353/hpu.2006.0091

10.1289/ehp.02110s2155

10.1542/peds.2004-0745

10.4135/9781849209120

10.1353/cpr.2007.0028

10.1146/annurev.publhealth.21.1.369

10.1016/S0033-3549(04)50087-0

10.1097/00124784-199803000-00004

10.1016/j.envres.2003.08.003

10.2105/AJPH.2011.300124

10.1023/B:AJCP.0000040146.32749.7d

Viswanathan M., 2004, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment

Wallerstein N., 2008, Community‐Based Participatory Research for Health, 371

10.3310/hta5230

Williams A., 2005, Application of Community‐Based Participatory Research Methods to a Study of Complementary Medicine Interventions at End of Life, Complementary Health Practice Review, 10, 91, 10.1177/1533210105279443

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Milbank Quarterly

Tập 90 Số 2

311-346

Thông tin tác giả