Engaging communities for health: iterative stakeholder involvement for theory development and testing using framework synthesis

Session: 

Oral session: Knowledge translation and communicating evidence (7)

Date: 

Tuesday 18 September 2018 - 14:40 to 14:50

Location: 

Ochil 2

All authors in correct order:

Brunton G1, Oliver S1, Thomas J1
1 EPPI-Centre, UCL Institute of Education, United Kingdom
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Ginny Brunton

Contact person:

Ginny Brunton
Abstract text
Background: Community engagement in healthcare policy and research is considered crucial. The National Institute of Health Research commissioned a multi-method systematic review of the theory, effectiveness, appropriateness and costs of community engagement in health interventions to reduce inequalities. Developing such a broad understanding of how community engagement 'works' required new methods of transdisciplinary collaboration with a range of stakeholders including members of the public, community practitioners, funders and academics.
Objectives: To describe the iterative engagement of stakeholders in the development of a conceptual framework used to test theories of change in community engagement using framework synthesis methods (familiarisation, framework selection, charting, mapping and interpretation).
Methods: We conducted a systematic review of community engagement in interventions for reducing inequalities. An initial conceptual framework was selected and modified iteratively during three meetings with key stakeholders. Within the final framework we produced: 1) a synthesis with findings that hypothesised theories of change; and 2) a synthesis testing these theories of change in a meta-analysis and meta-regression of effectiveness studies.
Results: The conceptual framework was refined as research was charted by screening and coding, and by thematic analysis during mapping. Stakeholders provided key papers during the familiarisation stage and drew on their experience to frame the interpretation of the conceptual framework findings. The iterative nature of framework synthesis allowed the integration of findings from multiple evidence syntheses to identify effective community engagement methods, and their active ingredients, to reduce inequalities.
Conclusions: Framework synthesis facilitated new understandings of community engagement, which evolved through transdisciplinary working. It transparently demonstrates stakeholders' contribution to knowledge translation.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Framework synthesis can transparently, explicitly and meaningfully engage key stakeholders, including members of the public, in evidence synthesis and knowledge translation. This can make research more relevant to those it is intended to help and can bring research evidence to bear on complex issues important to key stakeholders.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

To be more useful, systematic reviews should ultimately be informed by the people whom they are intended to help. Collaboration with key stakeholders, including members of the public, is therefore crucial. Framework synthesis provides a structured, transparent way to engage key stakeholders in evidence synthesis and knowledge translation. We recently used framework synthesis to embed stakeholder consultation in a systematic review of community engagement. We demonstrate that it can be used to help to make research more relevant for key stakeholders and can bring research evidence to bear on the issues important to them.