Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Apr 25;22(1):71.
doi: 10.1186/s12939-023-01881-y.

People powered research: what do communities identify as important for happy and healthy children and young people? A multi-disciplinary community research priority setting exercise in the City of Bradford, United Kingdom (UK)

Collaborators, Affiliations

People powered research: what do communities identify as important for happy and healthy children and young people? A multi-disciplinary community research priority setting exercise in the City of Bradford, United Kingdom (UK)

Christopher Cartwright et al. Int J Equity Health. .

Abstract

Background: Involving communities in research priority setting can increase the relevance and efficiency of research, leading to better health outcomes. However these exercises often lack clarity in how communities are involved and the extent to which priorities are acted upon is unclear. Seldom-heard groups, for example ethnic minorities may experience barriers to participation. We report methods and outcomes of an inclusive co-produced community research priority setting exercise within the multicultural and deprived city of Bradford, UK. The aim was to identify priorities for keeping children happy and healthy and was undertaken by the Born in Bradford (BiB) research programme to inform future research agendas.

Methods: A 12 member multi-disciplinary, multi-ethnic community steering group led the process using a modified James Lind Alliance approach between December 2018-March 2020. Research priorities were collected through a widely distributed paper and online survey. Respondents were asked to list three important things to keep children i) happy, ii) healthy and what needs to change to improve either health or happiness. Free text data were coded iteratively by community researchers, and shared priorities were co-produced in a series of workshops and meetings with the community steering group and community members.

Results: Five hundred eighty-eight respondents to the survey identified 5748 priorities, which were coded into 22 themes. These covered a range of individual, social and wider socioeconomic, environmental and cultural priorities. Diet/nutrition and exercise were most commonly identified as important for health, including what needs to change to improve health. For happiness, home life and family relationships, listening to children, and education/activities were the most commonly identified. Community assets were identified as important to change for both health and happiness. From the survey response the steering group developed 27 research questions. There were mapped onto existing and planned research agendas within BiB.

Conclusions: Communities identified both structural and individual factors as important priorities for health and happiness. We demonstrate how communities can be involved in priority setting using a co-productive approach in the hope this can be used as a model for others. The resulting shared research agenda will shape future research to improve the health of families living in Bradford.

Keywords: Born in Bradford; Children; Co-production; Ethnicity; Health; Patient and public involvement; Priority setting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Iterative co-produced priority setting process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Photograph of theme prioritization for the Environment and Neighbourhoods category and sub-codes
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Photograph of the creation of new community generated groupings
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Ranking comparison of healthy (Q1) vs. happy (Q2)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Ranking comparison of healthier (Q3) vs. happier (Q4)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Staniszewska S, Denegri S, Matthews R, Minogue V. Reviewing progress in public involvement in NIHR research: developing and implementing a new vision for the future. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e017124. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017124. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Heal Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00795.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blackburn S, McLachlan S, Jowett S, Kinghorn P, Gill P, Higginbottom A, et al. The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0100-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. NIHR. UK Standards for Public Involvement. 2019 [cited 19 Jan 2022]. Available from: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U-IJNJCfFepaAOruEhzz1TdLvAcHTt2Q/view.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, et al. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Heal Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801. doi: 10.1111/hex.12888. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources