New impulses from international development for more comprehensive and balanced public engagement evaluation
New impulses from international development for more comprehensive and balanced public engagement evaluation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/16549716.2019.1680067
复制
发表时间：
2019-01-01
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Haenssgen, Marco J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haenssgen, Marco J.
公众参与卫生研究已经越来越受欢迎，因为它有可能共同创造知识，产生对话，并根据目标群体的优先事项和现实进行研究。然而，实现这些目标的公众参与仍可能带来不可预见的负面后果或浪费资源。虽然近年来对公众参与的评价有所发展，但我们缺乏一致的评价标准，无法系统和透明地评估成败。本文介绍了发展援助评估领域的标准评估标准（有效性、效率、影响、相关性、可持续性），以促进评估实践更加系统和全面。我将这些标准应用于最近一个研究项目的公众参与部分，该项目涉及泰国和老挝的抗菌素耐药性、抗生素使用和健康行为。考虑到村级参与研讨会，在泰国北方的传统治疗的照片叙事的国际展览，和社会媒体沟通，我证明，似乎实现其目标的活动仍然可以在其他方面有问题的特点。我的结论是，这五个通用的评估标准可以扩大我们对公众参与的理解。在评价中更广泛地使用这些指标有助于建立更全面和平衡的证据基础，即使只能对公众参与项目和方案的一部分进行系统评价。
Public engagement in health research has gained popularity because of its potential to co-create knowledge, generate dialogue, and ground research in the priorities and realities of the target groups. However, public engagement that achieves these objectives could still entail unforeseen negative consequences or a wasteful use of resources. Although the evaluation of public engagement has evolved in recent years, we lack consistent evaluation criteria for systematic and transparent assessments of success and failure. This article introduces standard evaluation criteria from the field of development aid evaluation (effectiveness, efficiency, impact, relevance, sustainability) to promote more systematic and comprehensive evaluation practice. I apply these criteria to the public engagement component of a recent research project into antimicrobial resistance, antibiotic use, and health behaviour in Thailand and Laos. Considering village-level engagement workshops, international exhibitions of photo narratives of traditional healing in northern Thailand, and social media communication, I demonstrate that activities that seem to achieve their objectives can still have problematic characteristics in other dimensions. I conclude that these five generic evaluation criteria can broaden our understanding of public engagement. Their more widespread use in evaluations can help build a more comprehensive and balanced evidence base, even if only a sample of public engagement projects and programmes can be evaluated systematically.