[Research impact and participatory health research: an international debate]

Impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection on college students' hesitancy to receive additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses: A study from Taizhou, China

Purpose

This study aimed to examine the impact of a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection on the hesitancy of college students to receive additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses.

Methods

A population-based self-administered online survey was conducted in July 2024 in Taizhou, China. A total of 792 respondents were included in this study. Logistic regression was conducted to identify factors associated with college students' hesitation to receive booster doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Results

Of 792 respondents, 32.2 % hesitated to receive additional doses of the COVID-19 vaccine booster. Furthermore, 23.5 % of the respondents reported an increase in hesitancy to receiving additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses compared to before they were infected with SARS-CoV-2. In the regression analyses, college students who had a secondary infection were more hesitant to receive additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses (OR = 0.481, 95 % CI: (0.299-0.774), P = 0.003). Moreover, students with secondary infections who were male (OR = 0.417, 95 % CI: 0.221-0.784, P = 0.007), with lower than a bachelor's degree (OR = 0.471, 95 % CI: 0.272-0.815, P = 0.007), in non-medical majors (OR = 0.460, 95 % CI: 0.248-0.856, P = 0.014), and sophomores or below (OR = 0.483, 95 % CI: 0.286-0.817, P = 0.007) were more hesitant to receive additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses.

Conclusion

A history of SARS-CoV-2 infection affects college students' hesitation to receive additional COVID-19 vaccine booster doses, which was higher in those who experienced secondary infections.

[Planning, Reflecting and Evaluating Participatory Health Research: Adaptation and Piloting of the "Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Model" for German-Speaking Countries]

Participatory research approaches are becoming increasingly established in both academic and practice settings. The participation of people with varied lived experiences and professional backgrounds can help academia and practitioners to learn from and empower each other. In the exchange of different perspectives, needs and ideas, it is possible to plan, reflect on, implement and evaluate projects in the health sector jointly and with attention to the needs of all stakeholders. The Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Model is often used internationally to guide participatory processes. However, an accessible translation has been lacking for application in German-speaking countries. To address this problem, a multidisciplinary working group composed of academic researchers and practitioners came together within the German-speaking Participatory Health Research Network (PartNet) to adapt the CBPR model for German-speaking countries and to test the adapted version with potential users. The adaptation was more than a translation, as the four model components "Contexts", "Partnership Processes", "Intervention & Research" and "Outcomes" as well as their associated contents are not directly applicable to the socio-structural and political contexts of the German-speaking countries. This article describes the process of adapting the model. This includes how translation drafts for German-speaking countries were first discussed in detail and then agreed upon as an initial template for testing in practice. Subsequently, various users reflected on the German-language model based on their experience of testing it in different projects, focusing on accuracy, comprehensibility and applicability. At the same time, the model was presented and discussed at conferences. The diverse feedback was incorporated into further revisions of the model. The result is a German-language version called "Modell für partizipative Gesundheitsforschung (PGF-Modell)".

Participatory Approaches in Family Health Promotion as an Opportunity for Health Behavior Change-A Rapid Review

Background: With their influence on health behavior of children, families are important addressees in health promotion and prevention of chronic diseases. However, they are often difficult to reach, partly due to the open approach of health promotion services. Therefore, they should be addressed directly and be involved in shaping their living environment. The aim is to examine which approaches are used in participatory family health promotion and what practical experiences are made. Methods: A systematic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, LIVIVO and a supplementary hand search were conducted. Ten of 718 screened publications were analyzed qualitatively. Results: Most included publications applied the community-led participatory approach CBPR. In seven publications, family actors could make decisions at any or all project phases. One finding is that positive effects on desired behavior change and improved health of target groups were observed. Frequently described success factors are the type of interaction, and a common goal. Conclusion: The forms of family participation in health promotion vary widely, with the lack of participatory practices being a major challenge. Family participation is a useful approach in shaping health promotion and should be further developed. This overview provides support for planning future participatory projects with families.

Systematizing societal effects of transdisciplinary research

Over the past decade, transdisciplinary research has been faced with increasing demands by research policy and funding bodies to make its contribution to dealing with complex societal problems more transparent. In the literature, there is a range of methodological attempts to trace and describe the effects of transdisciplinary research, but these are characterized by inconsistent definitions regarding the scope and different forms of effects. This article aims to systematize the proposed categories and introduces a heuristic that can be used as a tool to sensitize researchers to intended effects ex ante and throughout the research process, as well as to reflect on the achieved effects ex post. The heuristic includes the temporal and spatial dimension of occurring effects (first-, second- and third-order) and characterizes possible forms of effects. It is validated and differentiated based on a multi-method empirical study involving 16 completed transdisciplinary research projects in different thematic areas. We propose a differentiation of frequently used categories, such as ‘learning effects’, and operationalize second- and third-order effects with the aim of ensuring a more consistent use of terminology in the transdisciplinary research community. We also specify methodical steps for a facilitated self-reflective application of the tool ex ante, supporting the research process, or ex post.