Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40448017›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

A multi-method evaluation of how equity deserving communities were engaged in research.

Emily Porchak, Ian D Graham, Justin Presseau, Anita Kothari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Emily PorchakFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Ian D GrahamUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Justin PresseauUniversity of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Anita KothariFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada. akothari@uwo.ca.

Funding

CIHR #202109EG3-477211-ERG-ADYP-179079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe aimed to understand and evaluate the types, experiences and levels of engagement of all groups engaged in the OPTimise research study. The OPTimise study used virtual community engagement to engage equity-deserving populations across three sites to help public health units tailor strategies to improve vaccine uptake during COVID-19. Our evaluation was uniquely conducted at arm's length from the OPTimise researchers who facilitated the virtual engagement with these groups.

methodThe community members involved in research (community leaders and citizen partners) were invited to complete the 22-item Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS-22) survey to understand the nature of engagement. Twenty-three participants were invited to complete the survey and 19 (83%) completed the survey. We conducted individual and focus group interviews with members of all four groups (community leaders, citizen partners, public health unit knowledge user and connectors, and methods researchers) to learn about their engagement experiences with the OPTimise study and research team. Thirty-five participants were invited to join an interview or focus group interview with 22 (63%) completing an interview.

resultsOPTimise study members reported "extremely meaningful" engagement which is the highest level on the PEIRS-22 scale. The interviews demonstrated that the OPTimise study was designed appropriately across the three sites. Interviews were analyzed based on four topics: relationship management, supporting processes, power sharing, and satisfaction with operations. Qualitative and quantitative data are compared to the Levels of Patient and Researcher Engagement in Health Research framework. Citizen partners and methods researchers reported being engaged at the level of "lead" on the framework. Community leaders reported their level of engagement as at the level of "involve" throughout the study while connectors and public health knowledge users reported their level of engagement was at the level of "involve episodically" throughout the study.

conclusionsThis evaluation found that building authentic relationships between the OPTimise research team and participants was key in the early phases of the OPTimise study. Researchers on future projects could benefit from developing working relationships with organizations who can connect with the target audience to facilitate trust building between researchers and engagement participants, especially in virtual environments.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationCOVID-19Health EquityPatient ParticipationAdultCOVID-19 VaccinesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19 VaccinesCommunity engagementCOVID-19Engagement evaluationVirtual engagement

Identifiers

PMID40448017
PMCPMC12123800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.