[Public participation in research from the perspective of primary health care researchers]

OBJECTIVE

Explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for development of public involvement in research by Institut Universitari d'Investigació en Atenció Primària Jordi Gol (IDIAPJGol) according to primary health care researchers in Catalonia (Spain).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study carried out in 2017 with 36 primary health care research teams accredited by IDIAPJGol and its management staff. An open questionnaire (paper and online) was designed and piloted to develop a SWOT technique, and 65 answers were obtained (14 in paper and 51 online). A thematic content analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Most informants consider public involvement in research a useful, innovative, viable and essential strategy, but it requires a change of mentality and a move away from the hierarchical paradigm. It can be difficult to execute and can complicate studies. They are concerned about which citizens should be involve, how to select them, possible conflicts of interest and training needs. The main proposals for its implementation are to disseminate previous strategies, encourage motivation and synergies among citizens, researchers and institutions, and to clarify the roles of the actors involved. IDIAPJGol should develop recommendations for the public involvement in research, encourage their inclusion, have a mentor and advise the research teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the challenges, developing public involvement in research in primary health care is essential and feasible, what it is more should be based on a participatory strategy with all actors. The citizens can participate in any kind of design and phase of the research, adapting each project, being the primary health care a privileged area to develop the public involvement in research.

[What kind of health information does the public need? Results of a qualitative study]

INTRODUCTION

In 2016, the users of a Results Centre were asked directly about their health information needs. Three objectives were set: to define the groups interested in receiving the information generated, to determine the contents of the information to be included in the different products, and to identify the formats and channels most suitable for each of the stakeholders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Semi-structured personal interviews and focus groups were organised to find out the interests of the users. Personal interviews and on-line consensus dynamics were also performed to determine the interests of the different health professionals, and those of professionals in communication. An analysis of content and discourse was done through the literal transcription of the focus groups and interviews held, as well as the open responses of the consensus dynamics.

RESULTS

Two major interest groups were defined: that of professionals and of the users, with the former sub-divided into different groups according to their professional profile. The main contents of health information to include in the products generated differed for each interest group, as well as the most suitable formats and channels in each case.

DISCUSSION

The information needs of professionals were oriented to the improvement of their professional practice. The importance of working on the dissemination of the information already generated, was also shown. The users stated that they only need information directly related to their health status, and identified their referring doctor as the person in charge of having this information and transmitting it.