Series: Public engagement with research. Part 3: Sharing power and building trust through partnering with communities in primary care research

Background : This article focuses on potential strategies to support primary care researchers in working in partnership with the public and healthcare professionals. Partnership working can potentially to improve the relevance and usefulness of research and ensure better research and health outcomes. Discussion : We describe what we mean by partnership working and the importance of reflecting on power and building trusting relationships. To share power in partnership working, it is essential to critically reflect on the multiple dimensions of power, their manifestations, and your own power. Power can influence relationships and therefore, it is essential to build trust with partners. Next, we outline how the context of primary care research and decisions about who you work with and how to work together, are vital considerations that are imbued with power. Lastly, we suggest different ways of working in partnership to address different dimensions of power. We provide examples from primary care research across Europe regarding how to recognise, tackle, and challenge, invisible, hidden and visible power. Conclusion : We conclude by proposing three calls to actions to encourage researchers working in primary care to consider the multiple dimensions of power and move towards partnership working. First is to use participatory methods to improve the inclusivity of your research. Second is to include patients and the public in decisions about the design, delivery and development of research and its outcomes. Third is to address various systemic and institutional barriers which hinder partnership working

Co-production : a kind revolution

Carnegie UK (CUK) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) INVOLVE held a meeting on the co-production of research, how we work together on equal terms. We brought together public contributors and individuals from organisations focused on research. We wanted to discuss how co-production could work in research, how it could be seen as business as usual, and to think through the barriers that stop us from working together, as well as the things that can help us move forward. While we agreed that the idea of working together is important, we recognised there are still many challenges to co-production being seen as a normal activity in research and the development of a ‘business case’ to persuade others is still needed. We also considered the wider civic roles that Universities are adopting as important in helping co-production become normal practice. Discussion focused on issues such as power and how it works in research. We recognised that we also need to create the right conditions for co-production, changing research culture so it becomes kinder, with a focus on the development of relationships. We also recognised the need for enough time for honest, high quality conversations between patients, public contributors and researchers that take account of how power works in research. Co-production was seen as a societal ‘good,’ helping us live well by undertaking research together that benefits the health of the public. We also identified a range of ways we could move co-production forward, recognising we are on a journey and that current societal changes brought about by Covid-19 may result in us being more radical in how we rethink the ways we want to work in research

Motivations, substance use and other correlates amongst property and violent offenders who regularly inject drugs

Objective: To examine the prevalence, correlates and motivations for the commission of property and violent crime amongst a sample of people who inject drugs (PWID)

Religion as practices of attachment and materiality: the making of Buddhism in contemporary London

This article aims to explore Buddhism’s often-overlooked presence on London’s urban landscape, showing how its quietness and subtlety of approach has allowed the faith to grow largely beneath the radar. It argues that Buddhism makes claims to urban space in much the same way as it produces its faith, being as much about the practices performed and the spaces where they are enacted as it is about faith or beliefs. The research across a number of Buddhist sites in London reveals that number of people declaring themselves as Buddhists has indeed risen in recent years, following the rise of other non-traditional religions in the UK; however, this research suggests that Buddhism differs from these in several ways. Drawing on Baumann’s (2002) distinction between traditionalist and modernist approaches to Buddhism, our research reveals a growth in each of these. Nevertheless, Buddhism remains largely invisible in the urban and suburban landscape of London, adapting buildings that are already in place, with little material impact on the built environment, and has thus been less subject to contestation than other religious movements and traditions. This research contributes to a growing literature which foregrounds the importance of religion in making contemporary urban and social worlds

What does "good" community and public engagement look like? Developing relationships with community members in global health research

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does "good" CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what "good" CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what "good" CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2022 Hickey, Porter, Tembo, Rennard, Tholanah, Beresford, Chandler, Chimbari, Coldham, Dikomitis, Dziro, Ekiikina, Khattak, Montenegro, Mumba, Musesengwa, Nelson, Nhunzvi, Ramirez and Staniszewska.

What Does “Good” Community and Public Engagement Look Like? Developing Relationships With Community Members in Global Health Research

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does “good” CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what “good” CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what “good” CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community

Building democracy from below : lessons from Western Uganda

How to achieve democratisation in the neopatrimonial and agrarian environments that predominate in sub-Saharan Africa continues to present a challenge for both development theory and practice. Drawing on intensive fieldwork in Western Uganda, this paper argues that Charles Tilly’s ‘democratisation as process’ provides us with the framework required to explain the ways in which particular kinds of association can advance democratisation from below. Moving beyond the current focus on how elite-bargaining and certain associational forms may contribute to liberal forms of democracy, this approach helps identify the intermediate mechanisms involved in building democracy from below, including the significance of challenging categorical inequalities, notably through the role of producer groups, and of building trust networks, cross-class alliances and synergistic relations between civil and political society. The evidence and mode of analysis deployed here help suggest alternative routes for supporting local efforts to build democracy from below in sub-Saharan Africa

A CO2 sensing module modulates β-1,3-glucan exposure in Candida albicans.

This work was funded by a program grant to A.J.P.B., N.A.R.G., L.P.E., and M.G.N. from the UK Medical Research Council [www.mrc.ac.uk: MR/M026663/1, MR/M026663/2]. The work was also supported by the Medical Research Council Centre for Medical Mycology [MR/N006364/1, MR/N006364/2], by a grant to C.d.E. from the European Commission [FunHoMic: H2020-MSCA-ITN-2018–812969], and by the Wellcome Trust via Investigator, Collaborative, Equipment, Strategic and Biomedical Resource awards [www.wellcome.ac.uk: 075470, 086827, 093378, 097377, 099197, 101873, 102705, 200208, 217163, 224323]. Work in the d’Enfert laboratory was supported by grants from the Agence Nationale de Recherche (ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (Sinergia CRSII5_173863/1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effective engagement and involvement with community stakeholders in the co-production of global health research.

"Co-Production of Knowledge" paper