scholarly journals Erratum: Abma, T., et al. Sowing Seeds to Harvest Healthier Adults: The Working Principles and Impact of Participatory Health Research with Children in a Primary School Context. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 451

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (9) ◽  
pp. 3252
Author(s):  
Tineke Abma ◽  
Sarah Lips ◽  
Janine Schrijver
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Primary School ◽  
Health Research ◽  
School Context ◽  
Research With Children ◽  
Participatory Health Research ◽  
Published Paper

The authors wish to make the following corrections to the above-mentioned published paper [1]: During production, an error occurred in the layout of Figure 1 ‘Learning impact of KLIK, as self-assessed by the children’ on page 6 [...]

scholarly journals Sowing Seeds to Harvest Healthier Adults: The Working Principles and Impact of Participatory Health Research with Children in a Primary School Context

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tineke Abma ◽  
Sarah Lips ◽  
Janine Schrijver
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Primary Schools ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
School Context ◽  
Subjective Health ◽  
Community Partners ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative Methods ◽  
Research With Children ◽  
Participatory Health Research ◽  
The Impact

Participatory research on health-related topics with children is promising but current literature offers limited guidance on how to involve children and falls short on the reporting impact. The purpose of this article is to heighten our understanding of the working principles and impact of participatory health research (PHR) with children. We completed a PHR project in two primary schools, which included children from a multiethnic, deprived neighborhood in the second largest city in The Netherlands over a period of three school years (2016–2019). The impact on the children’s subjective health has been measured via process evaluation using qualitative and quantitative methods from the perspectives of all involved (children, their teachers, parents, and community partners). The main working principles included: Experiential learning; addressing uncomfortable issues; stepping outside your environment; and keeping it simple. Participatory actions valued most by the children included: Walking tours, photovoice, foodlabs, sportlabs, and to a lesser extent: Making a newspaper, mindfulness, and Capoeira. The project reached and engaged many children, parents, teachers, and community partners into healthy lifestyles and broadened and deepened the children’s awareness and understanding of health behavior. ‘Sowing seeds’ is the metaphor that captures the broader impact of this project: Planting seeds to harvest healthier adults.

Kids in Action: Participatory Health Research with Children

2018 ◽  
pp. 93-113 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Gibbs ◽  
Katitza Marinkovic ◽  
Alison L. Black ◽  
Brenda Gladstone ◽  
Christine Dedding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Research ◽  
Research With Children ◽  
Participatory Health Research

scholarly journals What makes a ‘successful’ collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter van der Graaf ◽  
Lindsay Blank ◽  
Eleanor Holding ◽  
Elizabeth Goyder
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Evaluation Scheme ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Background The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013–2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School. Methods We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20). Results Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success’ of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved.

scholarly journals 32.K. Skills building seminar: Using participatory health research to optimise psycho-oncological patient information material

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Information ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
User Participation ◽  
End Users ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Participatory Health Research ◽  
Practical Instrument

Abstract Patient information material (PIM) is omnipresent in healthcare. It is used to convey information or to familiarize potential end-users to offers of support. PIM recaps or elaborates on relevant information and offers recommendation for action. However, the quality of available PIM varies. When the formal and content-related quality of PIM is suboptimal, it not only fails to be effective but can also lead to uncertainty, misunderstandings, resistance or ignorance (e.g. of a support offer). Highly complex information requires much attention on the quality of the PIM, especially with respect to end-users (e.g. vulnerable groups). Excellent communication through the use of PIM is thus essential within complex interventions. Checklists, such as 'Discern' or 'PEMAT', as well as criteria catalogues or evidence-based patient information standards, may assist in the development, quality assessment and optimization of PIM. The inclusion of the end-users is recommended but for various reasons does not often take place. The innovative “integrated, cross-sectional Psycho-Oncology” (isPO) programme, offers needs-driven, professional support to all adult, newly diagnosed cancer patients early in their sickness trajectory. IsPO was developed in 2018. It was implemented and a formative evaluated in 2019. When developing this programme, different PIM were created top-down by the programme designers. During implementation, it became evident that these PIM materials required further improvement. A testing and optimization process started using the participatory health research (PHR) approach and was completed in a five-month period. A PIM-optimisation team was founded, which included the project partners involved in the network support, self-help organisations and the external evaluation institute. A practical instrument (PIM-checklist) for optimising the isPO-PIM was designed, piloted and used for testing by end-users, isPO service providers, and experts. Based on the recommendations in the checklist, the material was revised accordingly. Additionally, the PIM was completed with the design of two new components. Four optimisation rounds were conducted. The optimized PIM was tested on its comprehensibility (for end-users) and its usability (for service providers). During the presentations, the audience is invited to comment on critical questions that may appear during optimization (e.g. timing). Afterwards, there will be a skill building part with a focus on collaborative learning (45 minutes). First, we will focus on the requirements for a practical instrument that is handy for end-users, service providers and experts (mind mapping exercise). Finally, participants will be able to explore the following topics “World Café” discussion: (1) how to plan, conduct and communicate the development of optimization of PIM in a CI program, (2) what needs to be considered for the optimization (e.g. team composition, resources), and (3) how to continuously achieve end-userś participation. Key messages Excellent PIM are essential for a complex interventiońs success in practice and must include information and foster actionability. the iterative PIM design processes benefits from high user participation.

scholarly journals Utilizing asynchronous email interviews for health research: overview of benefits and drawbacks

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Amri ◽  
Christina Angelakis ◽  
Dilani Logan
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Data Accuracy ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Face To Face

Abstract Objective Through collating observations from various studies and complementing these findings with one author’s study, a detailed overview of the benefits and drawbacks of asynchronous email interviewing is provided. Through this overview, it is evident there is great potential for asynchronous email interviews in the broad field of health, particularly for studies drawing on expertise from participants in academia or professional settings, those across varied geographical settings (i.e. potential for global public health research), and/or in circumstances when face-to-face interactions are not possible (e.g. COVID-19). Results Benefits of asynchronous email interviewing and additional considerations for researchers are discussed around: (i) access transcending geographic location and during restricted face-to-face communications; (ii) feasibility and cost; (iii) sampling and inclusion of diverse participants; (iv) facilitating snowball sampling and increased transparency; (v) data collection with working professionals; (vi) anonymity; (vii) verification of participants; (viii) data quality and enhanced data accuracy; and (ix) overcoming language barriers. Similarly, potential drawbacks of asynchronous email interviews are also discussed with suggested remedies, which centre around: (i) time; (ii) participant verification and confidentiality; (iii) technology and sampling concerns; (iv) data quality and availability; and (v) need for enhanced clarity and precision.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document