Suppr超能文献

开发参与实践工具包:在全球卫生研究项目的优先事项设定中与社区分享权力。

Developing a toolkit for engagement practice: sharing power with communities in priority-setting for global health research projects.

机构信息

Centre for Health Equity, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie St Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Mar 14;21(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-0462-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Communities' engagement in priority-setting is a key means for setting research topics and questions of relevance and benefit to them. However, without attention to dynamics of power and diversity, their engagement can be tokenistic. So far, there remains limited ethical guidance on how to share power with communities, particularly those considered disadvantaged and marginalised, in global health research priority-setting. This paper generates a comprehensive, empirically-based "ethical toolkit" to provide such guidance, further strengthening a previously proposed checklist version of the toolkit. The toolkit places community engagement and power-sharing at the heart of priority-setting for global health research projects.

METHODS

A two part method was used to generate a revised toolkit. Part one was conceptual, consisting of novel analysis of empirical data (previously collected as part of the same overall project) to identify additional concepts relevant to power-sharing between researchers and communities in global health research priority-setting. Part two was empirical, seeking feedback on the initial checklist version of the toolkit in interviews with researchers, ethicists, community engagement practitioners, and community organisation staff.

RESULTS

The conceptual process identified two additional components of engagement and six additional features that affect who defines, who participates, and who is heard in research priority-setting. New ethical considerations related to sharing power in global health research priority-setting are articulated in relation to those components and features. Interviewees provided suggestions for revising the toolkit's content and language. The implications of these suggestions and the analytic process for the toolkit are described.

CONCLUSIONS

The resultant toolkit is a reflective project planning aid for researchers and their community partners to employ before priority-setting is undertaken for global health research projects. It consists of three worksheets (to be completed collectively) and a companion document detailing how to use them. It is more comprehensive than the initial toolkit, as worksheet questions for discussion cover all phases of priority-setting.

摘要

背景

社区参与优先事项设定是确定与他们相关且有益的研究课题和问题的关键手段。然而,如果不关注权力和多样性的动态,他们的参与可能只是象征性的。迄今为止,在全球卫生研究优先事项设定中,关于如何与社区(特别是那些被认为处于不利和边缘地位的社区)分享权力,仍然缺乏有限的道德指导。本文生成了一个全面的、基于经验的“道德工具包”,为这种指导提供了依据,进一步加强了之前提出的工具包检查表版本。该工具包将社区参与和权力分享置于全球卫生研究项目优先事项设定的核心位置。

方法

采用两部分方法生成修订后的工具包。第一部分是概念性的,包括对新的经验数据(先前作为同一总体项目的一部分收集)进行分析,以确定与全球卫生研究优先事项设定中研究人员与社区之间权力分享相关的其他概念。第二部分是经验性的,通过对研究人员、伦理学家、社区参与从业者和社区组织工作人员进行访谈,征求对工具包检查表初始版本的反馈。

结果

概念性过程确定了参与的另外两个组成部分和六个影响研究优先事项设定中谁定义、谁参与和谁被听取的附加特征。与这些组成部分和特征相关,阐述了与全球卫生研究优先事项设定中权力分享相关的新的道德考虑因素。受访者就工具包的内容和语言提出了修订建议。描述了这些建议和工具包分析过程的含义。

结论

由此产生的工具包是研究人员及其社区合作伙伴在进行全球卫生研究项目优先事项设定之前使用的反思性项目规划辅助工具。它由三个工作表(集体填写)和一份详细说明如何使用它们的配套文件组成。它比初始工具包更全面,因为工作表上的讨论问题涵盖了优先事项设定的所有阶段。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验