Engaging people with lived experience on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research process which engages researchers and community members as equals during all phases of a research project. This approach promotes social change and enhances the practical relevance of the research. One key tool in CBPR is the community advisory board (CAB), where individuals with lived experience and community organizations are integrated into the research process and align research with community priorities. This scoping review: (1) explores best practices for effective recruitment and engagement of people with lived experience (PWLE) on CABs; and (2) identifies the scope of literature on minimizing power dynamics between organizations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together. A scoping review was conducted utilizing Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Peer reviewed publications and grey literature published between Jan. 1, 1990, and Mar. 30, 2023, were considered. Two independent reviewers screened references in successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Selected studies were analyzed using a content analysis strategy with NVIVO software. 2346 peer-reviewed studies and 15 articles of grey literature were identified with initial search and 53 texts were included in final analysis. Three main themes were identified; recruitment of PWLE; engagement of PWLE; and navigating power dynamics of PWLE working alongside representatives of community organizations. Within recruitment, subthemes of CAB selection strategies, challenges, and successes were reported. Within engagement, subthemes of CAB management, CAB roles and activities, capacity strategies, challenges, successes, and compensation of members were reported. Lastly, within PWLE working alongside organizational representatives, subthemes of challenges and mitigation strategies were reported. We emphasize the importance of relationship building and mutual respect within the CAB; clearly defined roles and responsibilities to reduce role confusion and tokenism; appropriate compensation, whether monetary or otherwise, bi-directional capacity building; and the use of a cultural insider whilst establishing/operating a CAB. We identified key factors that contribute to the effective recruitment and engagement of PWLE on CABs in the context of CBPR. This scoping review, completed by a CBPR group, identified key factors that can be utilized by other CBPR groups to better engage PWLE on CABs. Further research is needed to demonstrate the proposed best practices’ influence on CAB effectiveness. This scoping review used the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review methodology, with the addition of Levac’s sixth stage of consultation, in consultation with I-CREAte’s own CAB. This work has been completed by a CBPR group, and informed by its CAB, thus grounding it in the needs of CBPR groups and PWLE engaging in research, to provide resources for groups who employ similar models. This scoping review is narrowed to the realms of social and health services, and the relevance to other domains is uncertain. This review was restricted to literature in English and French, thus may have excluded relevant research published in other languages. Despite all efforts to be thorough with identification of the literature, we may have missed relevant publications.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,118 | 0,231 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,029 | 0,034 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».