Methods and measures to evaluate the impact of participatory model building on public policymakers: a scoping review protocol

被引:0
|
作者
Henson, Rosie Mae [1 ]
Purtle, Jonathan [2 ]
Headen, Irene [3 ]
Stankov, Ivana [4 ,5 ]
Langellier, Brent A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Drexel Univ, Dornsife Sch Publ Hlth, Hlth Management & Policy, Philadelphia, PA USA
[2] NYU, Dept Publ Hlth Policy & Management, New York, NY 10012 USA
[3] Drexel Univ, Dornsife Sch Publ Hlth, Community Hlth & Prevent, Philadelphia, PA USA
[4] Drexel Univ, Dornsife Sch Publ Hlth, Urban Hlth Collaborat, Philadelphia, PA USA
[5] Univ South Australia, Allied Hlth & Human Performance Acad Unit, Adelaide, SA, Australia
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2024年 / 14卷 / 01期
关键词
Health policy; Health Equity; PUBLIC HEALTH; Community-Based Participatory Research; Decision Making; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074891
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction Public policymakers are increasingly engaged in participatory model building processes, such as group model building. Understanding the impacts of policymaker participation in these processes on policymakers is important given that their decisions often have significant influence on the dynamics of complex systems that affect health. Little is known about the extent to which the impacts of participatory model building on public policymakers have been evaluated or the methods and measures used to evaluate these impacts.Methods and analysis A scoping review protocol was developed with the objectives of: (1) scoping studies that have evaluated the impacts of facilitated participatory model building processes on public policymakers who participated in these processes; and (2) describing methods and measures used to evaluate impacts and the main findings of these evaluations. The Joanna Briggs Institute's Population, Concept, Context framework was used to formulate the article identification process. Seven electronic databases-MEDLINE (Ovid), ProQuest Health and Medical, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Complete and PsycInfo-will be searched. Identified articles will be screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist for scoping reviews will be used and reported. A data extraction tool will collect information across three domains: study characteristics, methods and measures, and findings. The review will be conducted using Covidence, a systematic review data management platform.Ethics and dissemination The scoping review produced will generate an overview of how public policymaker engagement in participatory model building processes has been evaluated. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and to communities of practice that convene policymakers in participatory model building processes. This review will not require ethics approval because it is not human subject research.
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A scoping review of public building accessibility
    Carlsson, G.
    Slaug, B.
    Schmidt, S. M.
    Norin, L.
    Ronchi, E.
    Gefenaite, G.
    [J]. DISABILITY AND HEALTH JOURNAL, 2022, 15 (02)
  • [2] Methods and Measures Used to Evaluate Patient-Operated Mobile Health Interventions: Scoping Literature Review
    Bradway, Meghan
    Gabarron, Elia
    Johansen, Monika
    Zanaboni, Paolo
    Jardim, Patricia
    Joakimsen, Ragnar
    Pape-Haugaard, Louise
    Arsand, Eirik
    [J]. JMIR MHEALTH AND UHEALTH, 2020, 8 (04):
  • [3] Scoping review of indicators and methods of measurement used to evaluate the impact of dog population management interventions
    Elly Hiby
    Kate Nattrass Atema
    Rebecca Brimley
    Alexandra Hammond-Seaman
    Mark Jones
    Andrew Rowan
    Emelie Fogelberg
    Mark Kennedy
    Deepashree Balaram
    Louis Nel
    Sarah Cleaveland
    Katie Hampson
    Sunny Townsend
    Tiziana Lembo
    Nicola Rooney
    Helen Rebecca Whay
    Joy Pritchard
    Jane Murray
    Lisa van Dijk
    Natalie Waran
    Heather Bacon
    Darryn Knobel
    Lou Tasker
    Chris Baker
    Lex Hiby
    [J]. BMC Veterinary Research, 13
  • [4] Scoping review of indicators and methods of measurement used to evaluate the impact of dog population management interventions
    Hiby, Elly
    Atema, Kate Nattrass
    Brimley, Rebecca
    Hammond-Seaman, Alexandra
    Jones, Mark
    Rowan, Andrew
    Fogelberg, Emelie
    Kennedy, Mark
    Balaram, Deepashree
    Nel, Louis
    Cleaveland, Sarah
    Hampson, Katie
    Townsend, Sunny
    Lembo, Tiziana
    Rooney, Nicola
    Whay, Helen Rebecca
    Pritchard, Joy
    Murray, Jane
    van Dijk, Lisa
    Waran, Natalie
    Bacon, Heather
    Knobel, Darryn
    Tasker, Lou
    Baker, Chris
    Hiby, Lex
    [J]. BMC VETERINARY RESEARCH, 2017, 13
  • [5] The impact of participatory budgeting on health and wellbeing: a scoping review of evaluations
    Mhairi Campbell
    Oliver Escobar
    Candida Fenton
    Peter Craig
    [J]. BMC Public Health, 18
  • [6] The impact of Participatory Budgeting: a systematic scoping review of evaluations and outcomes
    Craig, Peter
    Campbell, M.
    Escobar, O.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2017, 27
  • [7] The impact of participatory budgeting on health and wellbeing: a scoping review of evaluations
    Campbell, Mhairi
    Escobar, Oliver
    Fenton, Candida
    Craig, Peter
    [J]. BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2018, 18
  • [8] National Public Health Dashboards: Protocol for a Scoping Review
    Yanovitzky, Itzhak
    Stahlman, Gretchen
    Quow, Justine
    Ackerman, Matthew
    Perry, Yehuda
    Kim, Miriam
    [J]. JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, 2024, 13
  • [9] Methods and measures of source monitoring in children: A scoping review
    Li, Qiuhong
    Li, Mengyuan
    Wu, Chao
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2024,
  • [10] Adverse childhood experiences: A scoping review of measures and methods
    Karatekin, Canan
    Mason, Susan M.
    Riegelman, Amy
    Bakker, Caitlin
    Hunt, Shanda
    Gresham, Bria
    Corcoran, Frederique
    Barnes, Andrew
    [J]. CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES REVIEW, 2022, 136