Challenges in conducting community-driven research created by differing ways of talking and thinking about science: a researcher’s perspective

Increasingly, health scientists are becoming aware that research collaborations that include community partnerships can be an effective way to broaden the scope and enhance the impact of research aimed at improving public health. Such collaborations extend the reach of academic scientists by integrating a variety of perspectives and thus strengthening the applicability of the research. Communication challenges can arise, however, when attempting to address specific research questions in these collaborations. In particular, inconsistencies can exist between scientists and community members in the use and interpretation of words and other language features, particularly when conducting research with a biomedical component. Additional challenges arise from differing perceptions of the investigative process. There may be divergent perceptions about how research questions should and can be answered, and in expectations about requirements of research institutions and research timelines. From these differences, misunderstandings can occur about how the results will ultimately impact the community. These communication issues are particularly challenging when scientists and community members are from different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds that may widen the gap between ways of talking and thinking about science, further complicating the interactions and exchanges that are essential for effective joint research efforts. Community-driven research that aims to describe the burden of disease associated with Helicobacter pylori infection is currently underway in northern Aboriginal communities located in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, Canada, with the goal of identifying effective public health strategies for reducing health risks from this infection. This research links community representatives, faculty from various disciplines at the University of Alberta, as well as territorial health care practitioners and officials. This highly collaborative work will be used to illustrate, from a researcher’s perspective, some of the challenges of conducting public health research in teams comprising members with varying backgrounds. The consequences of these challenges will be outlined, and potential solutions will be offered

The relevance of WHO injury surveillance guidelines for evaluation: learning from the aboriginal community-centered injury surveillance system (ACCISS) and two institution-based systems

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Over the past three decades, the capacity to develop and implement injury surveillance systems (ISS) has grown worldwide and is reflected by the diversity of data gathering environments in which ISS operate. The capacity to evaluate ISS, however, is less advanced and existing evaluation guidelines are ambiguous. Furthermore, the applied relevance of these guidelines to evaluate ISS operating in various settings is unclear. The aim of this paper was to examine how the World Health Organization (WHO) injury surveillance guidelines have been applied to evaluate systems operating in three different contexts.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The attributes of a good surveillance system as well as instructions for conducting evaluations, outlined in the WHO injury surveillance guidelines, were used to develop an analytical framework. Using this framework, a comparative analysis of the application of the guidelines was conducted using; the Aboriginal Community-Centered Injury Surveillance System (ACCISS) from Canada, the Shantou-Emergency Department Injury Surveillance Project (S-EDISP) from China, and the Yorkhill-Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program (Y-CHIRPP) imported from Canada and implemented in Scotland.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The WHO guidelines provide only a basic platform for evaluation. The guidelines over emphasize epidemiologic attributes and methods and under emphasize public health and injury prevention perspectives requiring adaptation for context-based relevance. Evaluation elements related to the dissemination and use of knowledge, acceptability, and the sustainability of ISS are notably inadequate. From a public health perspective, alternative reference points are required for re-conceptualizing evaluation paradigms. This paper offers an ISS evaluation template that considers how the WHO guidelines could be adapted and applied.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Findings suggest that attributes of a good surveillance system, when used as evaluation metrics, cannot be weighted equally across ISS. In addition, the attribute of acceptability likely holds more relevance than previously recognized and should be viewed as a critical underpinning attribute of ISS. Context-oriented evaluations sensitive to distinct operational environments are more likely to address knowledge gaps related to; understanding links between the production of injury data and its use, and the effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of ISS. Current frameworks are predisposed to disassociating epidemiologic approaches from subjective factors and social processes.</p

Setting and meeting priorities in Indigenous health research in Australia and its application in the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health

Priority setting is about making decisions. Key issues faced during priority setting processes include identifying who makes these decisions, who sets the criteria, and who benefits. The paper reviews the literature and history around priority setting in research, particularly in Aboriginal health research. We explore these issues through a case study of the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health (CRCAH)'s experience in setting and meeting priorities