Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36649162›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2023

Improving the Engagement of Underrepresented People in Health Research Through Equity-Centered Design Thinking: Qualitative Study and Process Evaluation for the Development of the Grounding Health Research in Design Toolkit.

Alessandra N Bazzano, Lesley-Ann Noel, Tejal Patel, C Chantel Dominique, Catherine Haywood, Shenitta Moore, Andrea Mantsios, Patricia A Davis

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
9.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Alessandra N BazzanoDepartment of Social, Behavioral, and Population Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8299-2626
Lesley-Ann NoelCollege of Design, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5890-0824
Tejal PatelDepartment of Social, Behavioral, and Population Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7495-9220
C Chantel DominiqueGlobal Impact Board, New Orleans, LA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4917-7275
Catherine HaywoodLouisiana Community Health Outreach Network, New Orleans, LA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0158-4215
Shenitta MooreLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3095-078X
Andrea MantsiosPublic Health Innovation & Action, New York, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3314-9173
Patricia A DavisDepartment of Social, Behavioral, and Population Sciences, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7413-6873
Tulane University · USActionAid · USLouisiana State University Health Sciences Center New Orleans · USNational Network of Public Health Institutes · USNorth Carolina State University · USUniversity of New Orleans · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth inequalities are rooted in historically unjust differences in economic opportunities, environment, access to health care services, and other social determinants. Owing to these health inequalities, the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected underserved populations, notably people of color, incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals, and those unable to physically distance themselves from others. However, people most strongly impacted by health disparities, and the pandemic, are not frequently engaged in research, either as researchers or as participants, resulting in slow progress toward improving health equity. Establishing ways to foster the engagement of historically excluded people is crucial to improving health equity through patient-centered health research.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess the use of equity-centered design thinking (EDT) for engaging community members in research prioritization related to COVID-19. The co-design methods and subsequent production of a toolkit that can be used for engagement were assessed through process evaluation and qualitative methods.

methodsProcess evaluation and qualitative inquiry, using reflexive thematic analysis, were undertaken to examine the use of EDT. Patient community members and stakeholders remotely partnered with design and health researchers in a year-long digital process to cocreate capacity-building tools for setting agenda for research regarding the impact of COVID-19 on health outcomes. Through a series of 3 workshops, 5 community partners engaged in EDT activities to identify critical challenges for the health and well-being of their communities. The subsequent tools were tested with 10 health researchers who provided critical input over the course of 2 workshops. Interviews with co-designers, project materials, and feedback sessions were used in the process evaluation and finalization of an equity-centered toolkit for community engagement in research. Data from the co-design process, meetings, workshops, and interviews were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis to identify salient themes.

resultsProcess evaluation illustrated how the EDT co-design process offered an approach to engage patient partners and community stakeholders in health-related research around COVID-19. The participants expressed satisfaction with design thinking approaches, including creative activities and iterative co-design, as a means of working together. Thematic analysis identified 3 key themes: the value of authentic partnerships, building trust and empathy through design, and fostering candid dialogue around health and social issues impacting historically underrepresented and underinvested communities.

conclusionsThe project addressed the need to test EDT strategies for fostering inclusive community engagement in health research agenda setting and provided an alternative to traditional top-down models. Despite the increasing use of human-centered design in health, few projects explicitly include equity in design thinking approaches. The use of methods and tools to intentionally engage underrepresented stakeholders in the process of research agenda setting and equitably sharing power between researchers and community members may improve health research, ultimately improving health equity.

Indexed as

COVID-19health behaviorhealth equityhuman-centered designpatient participationuniversal design

Identifiers

PMID36649162
PMCPMC10015353
OpenAlexW4316928407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read2
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.