Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39180111›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2024

Facilitating co-research: lessons learned from reflection forms within three participatory action research projects.

Helga Emke, Ann Vandendriessche, Mai Chinapaw, Benedicte Deforche, Maïté Verloigne, Teatske Altenburg, Manou Anselma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Helga Emke *Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. h.emke@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8675-2577
Ann Vandendriessche *Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Mai ChinapawDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Benedicte DeforcheDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Maïté VerloigneDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Teatske AltenburgDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Manou AnselmaDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Hartstichting CVON2016-07Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China BOF DOC2018003201Wellcome Trust 101569ZonMw CVON2016-07
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMutual learning and shared decision-making are key elements of Participatory Action Research (PAR), highlighting the important role of the facilitator to support this. This study aims to illustrate how a facilitator can contribute to successful PAR sessions based on the reflection of three PAR projects.

methodsParticipatory sessions took place with adolescents for 3-4 school years. After each session (n = 252 sessions across three projects), facilitators filled in a reflection form that assessed the group process and their facilitating role. Facilitators independently coded a selection of 135 reflection forms partly deductive and partly inductive based on core PAR principles derived from a pragmatic literature search.

resultsA well-prepared session - for example, including active and creative participatory methods and a clearly stated goal - contributed to efficiency and the necessary flexibility. Making agreements, making sure everyone is heard and taking 'fun-time' appeared important for creating and maintaining a safe, functional and positive atmosphere. Finally, facilitators needed to encourage co-researchers to take the lead and adapt to the group dynamics, to ensure ownership and shared decision-making.

conclusionIn-depth qualitative analyses of a standardized reflection form used in three different PAR projects resulted in various lessons to support facilitators in collaborating with co-researchers in PAR projects.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchCooperative BehaviorAdolescentDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedGroup ProcessesHealth Services ResearchHumansLearningQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelSchoolsCo-researchFacilitationParticipatory action researchReflection

Identifiers

PMID39180111
PMCPMC11342652

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.