scholarly journals Co-Creation in participatory epidemiology

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Bach ◽  
C Santos-Hövener ◽  
S Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Health Administration ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Participatory Epidemiology ◽  
Epidemiologic Evidence

Abstract Background Participatory epidemiology aims to involve public health professionals, health activists, and community representatives in epidemiological studies. Paramount are equitable research partnerships for identifying the causes of health problems, generating data, and finding ways to address health related issues. Alongside the research process, co-creation informs various aspects of participatory epidemiology. Methods A scoping review was conducted to develop the conceptual foundations of participatory epidemiology. Workshops with staff from public health administration and public health practitioners were held to check feasibility of the concept for public health monitoring, policy making and the development of relevant public health recommendations. From this research, principles and practices of co-creation were identified. Results Co-creation is of importance for participatory epidemiology. 1) Methodologically: Co-creation asks to apply multiple perspectives (research, practice, communities) in data collection and synthesis, what may require the adaption of a given study design. 2) Research practice: Co-creation in participatory epidemiology means producing epidemiologic evidence while contributing to concrete public health interventions, two goals that have to be balanced. 3) Personal attitudes: In participatory epidemiology academic researchers, practitioners, and community representatives are requested to acknowledge each other as co-researching partners, which can be challenging for each of them. Conclusions Co-creation is a prerequisite for establishing equitable research partnerships. In participatory epidemiology, co-creation offers ways to produce meaningful knowledge for research and practice. Main messages Participatory epidemiology offers ways of producing epidemiologic evidence while contributing to public health practice. Co-creation is a prerequisite, way, and attitude to conduct meaningful research, hopefully for all of those who are involved.

scholarly journals Workshop: Better ask those who are concerned: co-creation in participatory epidemiology and health promotion

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Synergistic Effects ◽  
Research Process ◽  
User Participation ◽  
Participatory Epidemiology ◽  
Community Ownership ◽  
Participatory Health Research ◽  
Research Findings

Abstract Objectives The hallmark of participatory research is the establishment of equitable research partnerships with a diverse group of stakeholders such as public health professionals, health activists and community representatives. This includes co-creation as a guiding principle that informs several aspects of the research process. Originally, co-creation is a concept from management science and software design and is focused on achieving synergistic effects through user participation in design processes. Co-creation in participatory epidemiology and health promotion aims to improve the life of those who are subjects of research by giving them a stake how studies are carried out, respectively how health promoting services, programmes or products are designed and provided. However, implementing and realizing co-creation is challenging. Participation asks for a systematic reflection of underlying power relations in the research process through dialog, recursive methods of understanding, and joint planning. This skills building seminar will present relevant co-creation concepts and methods. Additionally, illustrative examples from research practice are provided and will outline ways for implementing co-creation in the context of participatory epidemiology and health promotion. The seminar starts with a brief introduction on epistemological principles and ethical norms of participatory health research and state of the art definitions of co-creation. This presentation is followed by an introduction of how co-creation is impacting epidemiological research with regard to several aspects of the research process. Next, a project is presented in which co-creation informed the development of a virtual reality game in the field of alcohol prevention. Finally, participants will be split in two groups to have the opportunity to share thoughts on certain aspects of participatory research and co-creation in a poster discussion. More specifically, we aim to discuss: Does co-creation differ in the contexts of participatory epidemiology and health promotion? And if so how?What is needed to realize co-creation processes in practice? The seminar targets everyone working in the field of population health monitoring and health promotion. The timetable is as follows: Introduction, principles and definitions (15 min), participatory epidemiology and co-creation (15 min), co-designing in prevention and health promotion (15 min), poster discussions (30 min), plenary discussion and roundup (15 min). Main messages Co-creation is a way to improve the relevance of research findings, services and products for public health practice and the involved communities.Co-creation processes are vital to embrace the creativity of users and to ensure relevance and community ownership for health promotion programmes and services. Key messages Co-creation is a way to improve the relevance of research findings and products for various stakeholders. Co-creation is vital to embrace users’ creativity and to ensure community ownership.

Guidance for research-practice partnerships (R-PPs) and collaborative research

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 115-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Ovretveit ◽  
Susanne Hempel ◽  
Jennifer L. Magnabosco ◽  
Brian S. Mittman ◽  
Lisa V. Rubenstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Process ◽  
Relationship Building ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Research Experience ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
Partnership Research ◽  
Practice Gap

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence based guidance to researchers and practice personnel about forming and carrying out effective research partnerships. Design/methodology/approach – A review of the literature, interviews and discussions with colleagues in both research and practice roles, and a review of the authors' personal experiences as researchers in partnership research. Findings – Partnership research is, in some respects, a distinct “approach” to research, but there are many different versions. An analysis of research publications and of their research experience led the authors to develop a framework for planning and assessing the partnership research process, which includes defining expected outcomes for the partners, their roles, and steps in the research process. Practical implications – This review and analysis provides guidance that may reduce commonly-reported misunderstandings and help to plan more successful partnerships and projects. It also identifies future research which is needed to define more precisely the questions and purposes for which partnership research is most appropriate, and methods and designs for specific types of partnership research. Originality/value – As more research moves towards increased participation of practitioners and patients in the research process, more precise and differentiated understanding of the different partnership approaches is required, and when each is most suitable. This article describes research approaches that have the potential to reduce “the research-practice gap”. It gives evidence- and experience-based guidance for choosing and establishing a partnership research process, so as to improve partnership relationship-building and more actionable research.

scholarly journals Applying Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership Principles to Public Health Practice-Based Research Networks

SAGE Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 215824401667921 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy L. Winterbauer ◽  
Betty Bekemeier ◽  
Lisa VanRaemdonck ◽  
Anna G. Hoover
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Real World ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Community Based Participatory Research ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Dissemination And Implementation ◽  
Research Networks ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Practice Based Research

With real-world relevance and translatability as important goals, applied methodological approaches have arisen along the participatory continuum that value context and empower stakeholders to partner actively with academics throughout the research process. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides the gold standard for equitable, partnered research in traditional communities. Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) also have developed, coalescing communities of practice and of academics to identify, study, and answer practice-relevant questions. To optimize PBRN potential for expanding scientific knowledge, while bridging divides across knowledge production, dissemination, and implementation, we elucidate how PBRN partnerships can be strengthened by applying CBPR principles to build and maintain research collaboratives that empower practice partners. Examining the applicability of CBPR partnership principles to public health (PH) PBRNs, we conclude that PH-PBRNs can serve as authentic, sustainable CBPR partnerships, ensuring the co-production of new knowledge, while also improving and expanding the implementation and impact of research findings in real-world settings.

Foodborne Outbreak Investigation: Effect of Recall Inaccuracies on Food Histories

2019 ◽  
Vol 82 (6) ◽  
pp. 931-939 ◽  
Author(s):  
PATRICK J. SEITZINGER ◽  
JOANNE TATARYN ◽  
NATHANIEL OSGOOD ◽  
CHERYL WALDNER
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Outbreak Investigation ◽  
Food History ◽  
Foodborne Outbreak ◽  
Time Data ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Outbreak Investigations ◽  
Public Health Officials

ABSTRACT Recall inaccuracies are a key limitation in a foodborne outbreak investigation. Misclassifications in self-reported exposure status reduce the power of epidemiological studies to detect meaningful associations between exposures and the development of illness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of recall inaccuracies on the validity of food history data in a context comparable to outbreak investigations. The food consumption of 96 university students was collected using Ethica, a smartphone-based data acquisition system. Comprehensive food histories were captured for 10 days through a combination of digital images, meal descriptions, and short food exposure surveys. These real-time data were used as a reference to measure the sensitivity and specificity of food history questionnaires administered 7 or 18 days (2.5 weeks) after consumption (n = 86). The questionnaires and time intervals used in this study were designed to resemble a range of plausible local, provincial, and national enteric outbreak investigations conducted by public health officials in Canada. Comparably low accuracy of dietary memory after both time intervals suggests there is a substantial potential for bias for most food types following the first week after consumption. The magnitude of recall inaccuracies was not uniform across food types. This study serves as a first step in quantifying recall inaccuracies in a context comparable to how cases and controls might be questioned for outbreak investigations so that recall inaccuracies can be accounted for and mitigated in public health practice. HIGHLIGHTS

Graffiti als Version und Subversion–Praxen kultureller Re-Regulierung und die Möglichkeit von Gratiforschung

2010 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernd Dollinger
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Theoretical Point ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
Wird Eine ◽  
Multiple Perspectives

Der Beitrag geht von Versuchen aus, integrative Perspektiven einer überaus heterogenen Graffitiforschung zu bestimmen. In Auseinandersetzung insbesondere mit Bruno Latours Ansatz des »Iconoclash« wird eine kulturtheoretische Referenz bestimmt, die Graffiti als Version identifiziert, d. h. als semiotisch orientierte Veränderung räumlich situierter Ordnungs- und Regulierungspraxen. Ihnen kann, wenn auch nicht zwingend, eine subversive Qualität zukommen. Durch die Ausrichtung am Konzept einer Version wird beansprucht, Forderungen einer normativ weitgehend abstinenten, nicht-essentialistischen und für komplexe Fragen der Identitäts- und Raumpolitik offenen Forschungspraxis einzulösen.<br><br>The contribution attempts to integrate multiple perspectives of current largely heterogeneous graffiti scholarship. Referring to Bruno Latour’s concept »iconoclash«, we discuss graffiti from a cultural-theoretical point of view as a »version«. It appears as a semiotically oriented modification of spatially situated practices that regulate social life. Often, but not necessarily, these practices involve subversive qualities. The concept of »version« facilitates a non-normative and non-essentialist strategy of research. This enables an explorative research practice in which the complex matters of identity and space politics that are associated with graffiti can be addressed.

HIV

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua M. Sharfstein
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Research Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Health Agencies ◽  
Act Up ◽  
The U.S

The emergence of AIDS in the early 1980s caused a profound crisis for federal health agencies, particularly the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Activists in ACT UP, charging that these agencies were failing patients with AIDS, initiated a series of escalating protests. NIH officials, led by Dr. Anthony Fauci, began to talk with the advocates and make major changes in the research process. However, over at the FDA, a protest involving the arrest of hundreds of AIDS activists undermined the agency’s public health image. Eventually, under a new commissioner, the FDA earned back the trust of activists.

scholarly journals To which extent are per-and poly-fluorinated substances associated to metabolic syndrome?

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Zare Jeddi ◽  
Rozita Soltanmohammadi ◽  
Giulia Barbieri ◽  
Aline S. C. Fabricio ◽  
Gisella Pitter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metabolic Syndrome ◽  
General Population ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Small Body ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Epidemiologic Evidence ◽  
Adults And Children ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), ubiquitous persistent environmental contaminants, has led to substantial global concern due to their potential environmental and human health effects. Several epidemiological studies have assessed the possible association between PFAS exposure and risk of metabolic syndrome (MetS), however, the results are ambiguous. The aim of this study was to assess the current human epidemiologic evidence on the association between exposure to PFAS and MetS. We performed a systematic search strategy using three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) for relevant studies concerning the associations of PFAS with MetS and its clinical relevance from inception until January 2021. We undertook meta-analyses where there were five or more studies with exposure and outcomes assessments that were reasonably comparable. The pooled odd ratios (ORs) were calculated using random effects models and heterogeneity among studies was assessed by I2 index and Q test. A total of 12 cross-sectional studies (10 studies on the general population and two studies in the occupational settings) investigated the association between PFAS exposure and MetS. We pooled data from seven studies on the general population for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) and five studies for perfluorohexanesulfonate (PFHxS) and perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA). Predominately, most studies reported no statistically significant association between concentrations of PFAS and MetS. In the meta-analysis, the overall measure of effect was not statistically significant, showing no evidence of an association between concentrations of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and PFHxS and the risk of MetS. Based on the results of the meta-analysis, current small body of evidence does not support association between PFAS and MetS. However, due to limited number of studies and substantial heterogeneity, results should be interpreted with caution. Further scrutinizing cohort studies are needed to evaluate the association between various and less well-known PFAS substances and their mixture with MetS and its components in both adults and children in different settings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document