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

Gary Hickey,David Chandler,Rosemary Musesengwa,Peter O Ekiikina,Noni Mumba,Caroline M Ramirez,Peter Beresford,Doreen Tembo,Tina Coldham,Erica Nelson,Una Rennard,Lisa Dikomitis,Martha Tholanah,Clement Nhunzvi,Sophie Staniszewska,Biggy Dziro,Katie Porter,Cristián Montenegro ,Moses John Chimbari ,Maria Ishaq Khattak

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.776940

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Community and public engagement (CPE) in the development, undertaking and delivery of global health research, interventions and policy is increasingly regarded as essential by funding bodies [1,2,3]
The recognition of the importance of CPE has led to the development of various guidelines and standards for CPE generally [3, 4], techniques and approaches for CPE, such as approaches guided by participatory action research techniques [5], and CPE criteria being included in ethical guidelines that apply to global health research [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]
As the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) further develops a portfolio of work in global health, what can its past experience championing patient and public involvement (PPI) contribute to current debates on what constitutes “good” CPE? And can we develop something that involves a partnership of actors from both high income countries (HICs) and low and middle income countries (LMICs)? The CPE guidelines that are currently available are useful, but many are either non-health research focused [3], focused on a specific region/condition or research approach [4, 15, 16], or focused on the ethics of engagement [17]

Summary

Introduction

Community and public engagement (CPE) in the development, undertaking and delivery of global health research, interventions and policy is increasingly regarded as essential by funding bodies [1,2,3]. The UK Public Involvement Standards Development Partnership guidance on “what good looks like” in PPI has been encapsulated in the six standards for public involvement [14]. These standards are not a prescriptive “how to” manual; they can find expression in a variety of ways and can be used to guide and evaluate PPI in research. They are flexible enough to be applied to all research topic areas and in conjunction with any research methods

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion