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
  • [21] Participatory design application in obesity prevention targeting young adults and adolescents: a mixed-methods systematic scoping review protocol
    Taylor Jade Willmott
    Alieena Mathew
    Eve Luck
    Sharyn Rundle-Thiele
    Julia Carins
    Lisa Vincze
    Lauren Williams
    Lauren Ball
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 11
  • [22] Definitions and measures of long COVID fatigue in adults: a scoping review protocol
    Thomas, Bethan
    Pattinson, Rachael
    Edwards, Deborah
    Dale, Carys
    Jenkins, Benjamin
    Lande, Helena
    Bundy, Christine
    Davies, Jennifer L.
    [J]. JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2024, 22 (03) : 481 - 488
  • [23] Participatory design application in obesity prevention targeting young adults and adolescents: a mixed-methods systematic scoping review protocol
    Willmott, Taylor Jade
    Mathew, Alieena
    Luck, Eve
    Rundle-Thiele, Sharyn
    Carins, Julia
    Vincze, Lisa
    Williams, Lauren
    Ball, Lauren
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2022, 11 (01)
  • [24] A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research
    Shahid A.
    Lalani I.N.
    Rosgen B.K.
    Sept B.G.
    Longmore S.
    Parsons Leigh J.
    Stelfox H.T.
    Fiest K.M.
    [J]. Research Involvement and Engagement, 8 (1)
  • [25] Exploring power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships: A scoping review protocol
    Burduladze, Nino
    Jones, Laundette P.
    Jones, Brian D.
    Msowoya, Uchizi
    Salsberg, Jon
    Whitney, Anna
    Gilfoyle, Meghan
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2024, 19 (07):
  • [26] Conceptualising, operationalising and measuring trust in participatory health research networks: a scoping review protocol
    Gilfoyle, Meghan
    MacFarlane, Anne
    Salsberg, Jon
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (10):
  • [27] A scoping review of participatory research methods in agroecology studies conducted in South Asia
    Ohly, Heather
    Ibrahim, Zainab
    Liyanage, Champika
    Carmichael, Andrew
    [J]. AGROECOLOGY AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS, 2023, 47 (02) : 306 - 326
  • [28] Building consensus in research partnerships: a scoping review of consensus methods
    Cary, Miranda A.
    Plamondon, Katrina
    Banner-Lukaris, Davina
    Oelke, Nelly
    Sibley, Kathryn M.
    Baxter, Kristy
    Vis-Dunbar, Mathew
    Hoens, Alison M.
    Wick, Ursula
    Bigsby, Stefan
    Wuerstl, Kelsey
    Gainforth, Heather
    [J]. EVIDENCE & POLICY, 2023, 19 (03): : 485 - 511
  • [29] The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review
    Luna Puerta, Lidia
    Kendall, Will
    Davies, Bethan
    Day, Sophie
    Ward, Helen
    [J]. HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2020, 23 (04) : 759 - 788
  • [30] Methods to Evaluate Additional Risk Minimisation Measures: A Systematic Review
    Zomerdijk, Inge M.
    Mentink, Kelly
    Gispen-de Wied, Christine C.
    Sturkenboom, Miriam C. J. M.
    Straus, Sabine M. J. M.
    [J]. PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, 2013, 22 : 261 - 261