Engaging People with Lived Experiences on Community Advisory Boards in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Scoping Review.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that equally engages researchers and community stakeholders throughout all steps of a research process to facilitate social change, provide education to improve community practices and increase relevance of research, with the goal of improving community health and mitigating health disparities. Community advisory boards (CABs) are a tool utilized in CBPR, in which individuals with lived experience and community organizations are integrated into the research process, and ensure the work captures the priorities of the community under study. This scoping review aims to map the existing literature on approaches used to engage people with lived experiences on community advisory boards We seek to: (1) explore the best practices for the recruitment and engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs; and to (2) identify the scope of literature on minimizing power dynamics between organizations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together. The current scoping review also aims to inform the CAB structure of the I-CREAte (Innovations for Community Resilience, Equity and Advocacy) team, a CBPR group formed in 2020 to conduct action-oriented research within Kingston, Ontario and the surrounding region. Methods and analysis: This scoping review will follow the methodological framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley and informed by Levac et al. The PRISMA extension for scoping reviews tool will be utilized for reporting. Detailed and robust search strategies have been developed for Embase, Medline and PsychINFO in consultation with an expert librarian at Queen’s University. Additionally, grey literature references and reference lists of included articles were considered. This scoping review will include studies conducted between 1990 and 2022 addressing the engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs in CBPR and best practices to effectively recruit and engage people with lived experience on CABs. Two reviewers will independently screen references using Covidence software in two successive stages of title/abstract screening and then full-text screening for studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis will be applied to included studies in three phases: open coding; axial coding; and abstraction. The extracted data will be recorded and presented in a tabular format and/or graphical summaries, with a descriptive overview discussing how the research findings relate to the research questions. Ethics and dissemination: Formal ethics approval is not required, as primary data will not be collected in this study. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, workshops, and executive summaries/reports for key stakeholders and partners. Keywords: Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR), Social Change, Community Advisory Boards (CABs), Lived Experiences, Community Resilience, Equity and Advocacy. Current status at publication date: A preliminary search of peer-reviewed and grey literature has been conducted. Search results for peer-reviewed literature have been uploaded to Covidence for review and appraisal for relevance. Disclosures: Funding: Funding support was provided by Queen’s University Office of the Principal and Vice-Chancellor, Department of Family Medicine, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,253 | 0,077 |
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».