Expect the unexpected? Challenges of prospectively exploring stakeholder engagement in research
Expect the unexpected? Challenges of prospectively exploring stakeholder engagement in research
复制标题
期待意想不到的事情？前瞻性探索利益相关者参与研究的挑战
DOI：
10.1057/s41599-021-00770-5
复制
发表时间：
2021-04-20
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Jones, Teresa
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
O'Shea, Alison;Boaz, Annette;Jones, Teresa
利益攸关方参与研究越来越被视为对协助产生影响作出重大贡献。本文借鉴了一个纵向的，前瞻性的影响研究，探讨利益相关者参与一个为期3年的烟草控制研究项目，使用利益相关者参与开发，测试和传播的投资回报工具。本文介绍了在对利益攸关方参与卫生相关研究进行前瞻性研究时数据收集方面的挑战。影响研究采用混合数据收集方法，探讨利益攸关方参与目标项目的情况，包括调查、访谈和观察涉及利益攸关方的会议和活动。目标项目中实际发生的利益攸关方参与以及影响研究中实际使用的利益攸关方参与的数据收集方法与每种情况下的预期方法有很大差异。影响研究的数据收集取决于目标项目的利益攸关方的参与，但这种参与已大大减少。需要修改影响研究的数据收集。利益攸关方参与减少的原因之一与目标项目在遵守不可谈判的最后期限方面受到的限制有关。另一个因素是担心利益攸关方负担过重。利益攸关方参与减少的连锁反应突出表明，影响研究对其数据收集缺乏控制，这与研究的前瞻性有关。作者承认，回顾性方法比前瞻性方法的优势在于研究人员从一开始就了解数据的可用性和可访问性。然而，影响研究的前瞻性方法使人们能够实时了解利益相关者的参与：如何以及何时发生，挑战以及利益相关者和目标项目研究人员的经验。虽然收集的数据数量大大少于预期，但数据质量很高，使影响研究的目标得以实现。随着越来越重视公众参与研究，并呼吁参与的影响进行评估，本文旨在通过突出的影响研究所经历的挑战，提供一些见解，以未来的研究，寻求回应这些呼吁。
Stakeholder engagement in research is increasingly viewed as making a major contribution to assisting impact. This paper draws on a longitudinal, prospective impact study exploring stakeholder engagement in a 3-year tobacco control research project which used stakeholder engagement in the development, testing and dissemination of its return on investment tool. The paper presents the challenges of data collection when undertaking prospective research on stakeholder engagement in health-related research. The impact study used mixed methods of data collection to explore stakeholder engagement in the target project, comprising surveys, interviews and observations of meetings and events involving stakeholders. Stakeholder engagement that actually occurred in the target project, and the data collection methods of stakeholder engagement that were actually used in the impact study, varied substantially from those intended in each case. Data collection for the impact study was dependent on the target project's stakeholder engagement, which became substantially reduced. Modifications to data collection for the impact study were required. One of the reasons for the reduction of stakeholder engagement was linked to constraints on the target project to meet non-negotiable deadlines. Another factor was concerns about overburdening stakeholders. The knock-on effect of reduced stakeholder engagement highlighted the impact study's lack of control over its data collection, which was related to the prospective nature of the study. The authors acknowledge that an advantage of a retrospective approach over a prospective one is researchers knowing about data availability and accessibility from the outset. However, the prospective approach of the impact study enabled insight into stakeholder engagement in real-time: how and when it occurred, the challenges, and the experiences of stakeholders and the target project researchers. While the quantity of data gathered was considerably less than anticipated, the quality of data was rich and enabled the impact study objectives to be achieved. With increasing emphasis on public engagement in research and calls for engagement to be evaluated for impact, this paper aims-by highlighting the challenges the impact study experienced-to provide some insight to future research that seeks to respond to those calls.