Förderung von Qualitätsentwicklung durch Partizipative Gesundheitsforschung

[Comparing Community Capacities by Local Actors and External Experts: An Audit of Health Promotion Activities in Lenzsiedlung, Hamburg]

AIM

The questionnaire "Capacity building in Neighbourhoods (KEQ)" has five dimensions which are regarded as intermediary outcome results of community health promotion. The questionnaire was to be completed by local actors and thus has some features of self-evaluation. We wanted to find out whether external experts make similar or more critical assessments.

METHODS

We conducted an audit of the health promotion activities in our intervention area (Hamburg neighbourhood Lenzsiedlung) in two steps. Five external health promotion experts functioned as auditors with experience in evaluating good practice projects of health promotion. The first part of the audit was a document-based evaluation, the second part a visit-based one during a two-day stay in the intervention area.

RESULTS

In the comparison of local actors' assessments (KEQ questionnaire results) with those of external experts in the document-based audit, the judgements of external experts were more positive on all five dimensions of the questionnaire (deviations from +0.1 to +0.9 on a scale from 1 to 5). In the visit-based audit, there was convergence in the assessments of the local actors and the external experts. They were partly identical; only the dimension "local leadership" was viewed slightly more critically by the external experts.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our discussion of the four methodical problems of the comparison, we conclude that, on the whole, local actors do not tend to evaluate their activities too positively. However, if resources are available, one should try to confirm local views of outcomes by external assessments.

[Patient and public involvement (PPI) in palliative care research]

BACKGROUND

Patient and public participation in health research is of increasing social importance. The participation of citizens (patients, their next or interested parties) is not yet structurally anchored in Germany. This manuscript aims to present and to discuss first experiences with patient and public involvement in two palliative care centers.

METHODS

In two centers, a general patient and public involvement committee (Erlangen) and a project-associated patient and public involvement group (Munich) were founded. Strategies for recruitment of potential members (public lectures, personal contact, information on the website, leaflets) were developed and applied. Sociodemographic data and motivations were assessed using survey and personal communication. 18 months after foundation citizens were asked to give feedback on participation during personal meetings.

RESULTS

The 20 members of the PPI committee (14 female) are between 52 and 86 years old in Erlangen. The PPI group in Munich has 7 members (5 female). Motivations to contribute are, for example, gratefulness for the care of a relative or the wish to share occupational competencies for a good purpose. Voluntary participation took place by consulting the research teams. Consultation was, among others, performed in joint sessions with brainstorming, moderated group discussions, piloting and commenting interview guides, texts or website content. Participation improved the quality of study material and data assessment instruments. Citizens appreciated that they were able to gain new information and meet people from different fields. They partly wished there was a more detailed preparation and debriefing after joint meetings. The research teams did not quantify the considerable staff and time expenses.

DISCUSSION

The recruitment strategies used have proved successful, and the experiences so far indicate a positive impact of PPI on research in the field of palliative care. Research is needed to evaluate the resources required and the effect of PPI in palliative care. On a structural level, discussion of PPI as one specification of voluntary engagement in palliative care, centralized provision of general information on PPI in palliative care and the possibilities of exchange between PPI groups and researchers of different facilities, should take place.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for networking and exchange among researchers and citizens of different project groups with experience in PPI. An institutionalized provision of expertise would pave the way for PPI in palliative research.