Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
2
Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
3
Disease Elimination, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
4
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
5
Community Engagement Group, Optimise Study, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
6
Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
7
Coelho Networks, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
8
Centre for Disaster Management and Public Safety, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
9
Victorian Infectious Diseases Service, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
10
Department of Infectious Diseases, University of Melbourne, Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
11
Department of Infectious Diseases, The Alfred and Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
12
Doherty Institute and Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
13
Centre for Transformative Innovation, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Abstract
Background
Community engagement is key to developing local and context-specific strategies for the prevention and control of COVID-19. However, expedited research design and approval in the early days of the pandemic may have limited the opportunities for community members to influence pandemic-related research. In this study, we sought to understand how a Community Engagement Group (CEG) could impact a large longitudinal COVID-19 research project (Optimise), when involved solely in the interpretation and knowledge translation phases of the research.
Methods
Seven community members were recruited for the CEG, representing a diverse range of groups. Each month, Optimise data of topical importance were compiled into a draft report. The CEG discussed the draft report at their monthly meeting and members’ contributions were incorporated into the final report for distribution to policy-makers. In this study, a document analysis was undertaken of ten consecutive reports produced between February and November 2021. Each report was compared pre- and post- the inclusion of CEG contributions, which were then analysed using thematic analysis.
Results
Community engagement in the interpretation and knowledge translation phases of Optimise had positive impacts on reports for policy-makers, including grounding the empirical findings in broader community perspectives, identifying policy issues affecting different groups and contributing unique insights beyond the empirical findings. Overall, the CEG contributions demonstrated the complexity of lived experience lying beneath the empirical data.
Conclusion
Community engagement in the translation of the Optimise findings resulted in research reports to policymakers that were reflective of a broader range of community perspectives, and that provided potential solutions to emerging policy issues related to COVID-19. This study adds to the evidence base about the impact of community engagement in the later interpretation and knowledge translation phases of research, particularly in the context of reporting to policy-makers during a public health emergency.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)
