Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25938240›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Two methods for engaging with the community in setting priorities for child health research: who engages?

Wavne Rikkers, Katrina Boterhoven de Haan, David Lawrence, Anne McKenzie, Kirsten Hancock, Hayley Haines, Daniel Christensen, Stephen R Zubrick

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wavne RikkersTelethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Katrina Boterhoven de HaanTelethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
David LawrenceTelethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Anne McKenzieSchool of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Perth, Australia.
Kirsten HancockTelethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Hayley HainesSchool of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Perth, Australia.
Daniel ChristensenTelethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Stephen R ZubrickTelethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
University of Western Australia · AUThe Kids Research Institute Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aims of this study were to assess participatory methods for obtaining community views on child health research.

backgroundCommunity participation in research is recognised as an important part of the research process; however, there has been inconsistency in its implementation and application in Australia. The Western Australian Telethon Kids Institute Participation Program employs a range of methods for fostering active involvement of community members in its research. These include public discussion forums, called Community Conversations. While participation levels are good, the attendees represent only a sub-section of the Western Australian population. Therefore, we conducted a telephone survey of randomly selected households to evaluate its effectiveness in eliciting views from a broader cross-section of the community about our research agenda and community participation in research, and whether the participants would be representative of the general population. We also conducted two Conversations, comparing the survey as a recruitment tool and normal methods using the Participation Program.

resultsWhile the telephone survey was a good method for eliciting community views about research, there were marked differences in the profile of study participants compared to the general population (e.g. 78% vs 50% females). With a 26% response rate, the telephone survey was also more expensive than a Community Conversation. The cold calling approach proved an unsuccessful recruitment method, with only two out of a possible 816 telephone respondents attending a Conversation.

conclusionWhile the results showed that both of the methods produced useful input for our research program, we could not conclude that either method gained input that was representative of the entire community. The Conversations were relatively low-cost and provided more in-depth information about one subject, whereas the telephone survey provided information across a greater range of subjects, and allowed more quantitative analysis.

Indexed as

Child HealthCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesWestern AustraliaYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25938240
PMCPMC4418596
OpenAlexW1480192525

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.