How should communities be meaningfully engaged (if at all) when setting priorities for biomedical research? Perspectives from the biomedical research community
Background
There is now rising consensus that community engagement is ethically and scientifically essential for all types of health research. Yet debate continues about the moral aims, methods and appropriate timing in the research cycle for community engagement to occur, and whether the answer should vary between different types of health research. Co-design and collaborative partnership approaches that involve engagement during priority-setting, for example, are common in many forms of applied health research but are not regular practice in biomedical research. In this study, we empirically examine the normative question: should communities be engaged when setting priorities for biomedical research projects, and, if so, how and for what purpose?
Methods
We conducted in-depth interviews with 31 members of the biomedical research community from the UK, Australia, and African countries who had engaged communities in their work. Interview data were thematically analysed.
Results
Our study shows that biomedical researchers and community engagement experts strongly support engagement in biomedical research priority-setting, except under certain circumstances where it may be harmful to communities. However, they gave two distinct responses on what ethical purpose it should serve—either empowerment or instrumental goals—and their perspectives on how it should achieve those goals also varied. Three engagement approaches were suggested: community-initiated, synergistic, and consultative. Pre-engagement essentials and barriers to meaningful engagement in biomedical research priority-setting are also reported.
Conclusions
This study offers initial evidence that meaningful engagement in priority-setting should potentially be defined slightly differently for biomedical research relative to certain types of applied health research and that engagement practice in biomedical research should not be dominated by instrumental goals and approaches, as is presently the case.
Топ-30
Журналы
|
1
2
|
|
|
Research Involvement and Engagement
2 публикации, 12.5%
|
|
|
Journal of Investigative Dermatology
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Obstetrics and Gynecology
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Health Research Policy and Systems
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Monash bioethics review
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
BMC Health Services Research
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
BMC Medical Ethics
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Injury Epidemiology
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Wellcome Open Research
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Stem Cell Reports
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
1
2
|
Издатели
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
|
|
|
Springer Nature
8 публикаций, 50%
|
|
|
Elsevier
2 публикации, 12.5%
|
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Emerald
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Annual Reviews
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
F1000 Research
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
Wiley
1 публикация, 6.25%
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
|
- Мы не учитываем публикации, у которых нет DOI.
- Статистика публикаций обновляется еженедельно.