Assessing Meaningful Community Engagement
Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health
KEY FEATURES
COMMUNITY/ GEOGRAPHY
Academic researchers
Community researchers
Canada
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OUTCOMES
Strengthened partnerships + alliances
Diversity + inclusivity
Partnerships + opportunities
Acknowledgment, visibility, recognition
Mutual value
Trust
Shared power
Structural supports for community engagement
Expanded knowledge
Bi-directional learning
Thriving communities
Community capacity + connectivity
Community power
PLACE(S) OF INSTRUMENT USE
Funder, philanthropy, and other investors
Community/community-based organization
Academic/research institution/university
LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS
Not specified
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES
Content validity
Inter-rater reliability
YEAR OF USE
Not specified
Assessment Instrument Overview
Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health1,2 has 25 questions for use by academic and community researchers and research funding agencies. It assesses grant applications and evaluates participatory research proposals.
Alignment with Assessing Meaningful Community Engagement Conceptual Model
The questions in the Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health were aligned to the Assessing Community Engagement Conceptual Model. Figure 1 displays the alignment of the Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health with the Conceptual Model domain(s) and indicator(s). Where an instrument is mapped broadly with a domain or with a specific indicator, the figure shows the alignment in blue font.
Table 1 displays the alignment of the Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health’s individual questions with the Conceptual Model domain(s) and indicator(s). The table shows, from left to right, the aligned Conceptual Model domain(s) and indicator(s) and the individual questions from the Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health transcribed as they appear in the instrument (with minor formatting changes for clarity).
| CONCEPTUAL MODEL DOMAIN(S) AND INDICATOR(S) | ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT QUESTIONS |
STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Diversity + inclusivity | 1a) Is the community of interest clearly described or defined? 1b) Do members of the defined community participating in the research have concern or experience with the issue? 1d) Is attention given to barriers to participation, with consideration of those who have been under-represented in the past? 3d) Does the scope of the research encompass some combination of political, social and economic determinants of health? 5b) Is the potential of the defined community for action reflected by the research process?* |
STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Partnerships + opportunities | 4b) For community participants, does the process allow for learning about research methods? 5a) Is the potential of the defined community for individual and collective learning reflected by the research process? |
| STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Acknowledgment, visibility, recognition | 5b) Is the potential of the defined community for action reflected by the research process?* |
| STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Mutual value | 5c) Does the process reflect a commitment by researchers and community participants to social, individual or cultural actions consequent to the learning acquired through research? 6a) Do community participants benefit from the research outcomes? |
| STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Trust | 1e) Has attention been given to establishing within the community an understanding of the researchers’ commitment to the issue? |
| STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Shared power | 1c) Are interested members of the defined community provided opportunities to participate in the research process? 1f) Are community participants enabled to contribute their physical and/or intellectual resources to the research process? 2a) Did the impetus for the research come from the defined community? 2b) Is an effort to research the issue supported by members of the defined community? 4a) Does the research process apply the knowledge of community participants in the phases of planning, implementation and evaluation? 4f) Are community participants involved in analytic issues: interpretation, synthesis and the verification of conclusions? Is there attention to or an explicit agreement
6d) between researchers and community participants with respect to the dissemination of the research results?* |
STRENGTHENED PARTNERSHIPS + ALLIANCES; Structural supports for community engagement | 4d) Does the process allow for flexibility or change in research methods and focus, as necessary? 4e) Are procedures in place for appraising experiences during implementation of the research? Is there attention to or an explicit agreement
6d) between researchers and community participants with respect to the dissemination of the research results?* |
EXPANDED KNOWLEDGE; Bi-directional learning | 3a) Can the research facilitate learning among community participants about individual and collective resources for self-determination? 4c) For researchers, does the process allow for learning about the community health issue? |
THRIVING COMMUNITIES; Community capacity and connectivity | 3b) Can the research facilitate collaboration between community participants and resources external to the community? |
THRIVING COMMUNITIES; Community power | 3c) Is the purpose of the research to empower the community to address determinants of health? |
*Note that these questions are duplicated to reflect their alignment with multiple domains and/or indicators in the Conceptual Model.
Table 1 | Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health questions and alignment with the domain(s) and indicator(s) of the Assessing Community Engagement Conceptual Model
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT BACKGROUND
Context of instrument development/use
The article notes that health research funding agencies and reviewers who appraise proposals could use questions to “evaluate grant applications proposing participatory research.” The Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health instrument represents a systematic attempt to make explicit and measure the principles and defining characteristics of participatory research. “Participatory research is defined as systematic inquiry, with the collaboration of those affected by the issue being studied, for purposes of education and taking action or effecting change.” Health promotion researchers, including academic and community researchers, could use the instrument in planning their participatory projects, making explicit the essential components of the process. The instrument could be used alongside other methods to evaluate the merits of any research proposal; however, it is not intended to be used in the absence of other pertinent procedures.2
Instrument description/purpose
The Guidelines for Participatory Research in Health instrument presents a generic set of questions “that define participatory research.” The instrument and its 25 questions measure six focus areas:
- Participants and the nature of their involvement
- Origin of the research question
- Purpose of the research
- Process and contextómethodological implications (or implications of the process and context of engaging community participants on the research methodology)
- Opportunities to address the issue of interest
- Nature of the research outcomes
Each question in the instrument has five response option categories. The response option category differs depending on the question; however, the authors note that the option categories “increase in appropriateness to participatory research from left to right.” Projects or grant applications can be reviewed for the distribution trends of responses, where, for example, a greater frequency of responses on the left may “indicate a lesser alignment with the principles of participatory research.” The authors highlighted avoiding using a single summative total score to assess responses and cautioned users that “some of the classification categories do not follow a simple hierarchy from weak to strong participatory research.” Of note, “the most appropriate level for some projects on some questions might be more toward the middle or even to the response options toward the left.”2
A link for this instrument is currently unavailable, but Table 1 provides the specific questions.
Engagement involved in developing, implementing, or evaluating the assessment instrument
External experts, who represented most regions of Canada, reviewed the instrument during 2 eight-hour workshops that took place six months apart. 29 out of 41 individuals who were involved in unique participatory research projects in Canada completed the instrument. The results from the assessment instrument were used to make iterative content and readability revisions to the guidelines.2
Additional information on populations engaged in instrument use
Not specified.
Notes
- Potential limitations: While attempting to ensure specificity and concreteness to the evaluation of participatory research practices, the guidelines may prevent the opportunity for adaptation of the research agenda to suit local needs.2
- Important findings: The instrument and the classifications allow users to create a participatory profile of a funding proposal or project. The project or proposal will determine which guidelines in the instrument are applicable or the degree to which the guidelines should be applied. “Variability between project profiles may reflect differences in alignment with principles of participatory research but such differences may not necessarily reflect differences in the appropriate application of participatory research principles.”2
- Future research needed: Further “development, testing and application of the guidelines will strengthen their utility in supporting participatory research and its contribution to knowledge development in health promotion.” While content validity for this instrument has been established, appraisal of other forms of validity would support the evaluation.2
We want to hear from you!
Assessing community engagement involves the participation of many stakeholders. Click here to share feedback on these resources, or email [email protected] and include “measure engagement” in the subject line to learn more about the NAM’s Assessing Community Engagement project.
