79
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How are public engagement health festivals evaluated? A systematic review with narrative synthesis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The evaluation of public engagement health festivals is of growing importance, but there has been no synthesis of its practice to date. We conducted a systematic review of evidence from the evaluation of health-related public engagement festivals published since 2000 to inform future evaluation. Primary study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Extracted data were integrated using narrative synthesis, with evaluation methods compared with the Queen Mary University of London public engagement evaluation toolkit. 407 database records were screened; eight studies of varied methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. Evaluations frequently used questionnaires to collect mixed-methods data. Higher quality studies had specific evaluation aims, used a wider variety of evaluation methods and had independent evaluation teams. Evaluation sample profiles were often gender-biased and not ethnically representative. Patient involvement in event delivery supported learning and engagement. These findings and recommendations can help improve future evaluations. (Research Registry ID reviewregistry1021).

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                23 August 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 8
                : e0267158
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Palliative and End of Life Care Research Group, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
                [2 ] Public Engagement Team, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
                Charles Darwin University, AUSTRALIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5747-2699
                Article
                PONE-D-21-31416
                10.1371/journal.pone.0267158
                9398006
                35998157
                f8b3bcfd-de9d-4bc6-ae77-5de1b5a4c67d
                © 2022 Martin et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 29 September 2021
                : 3 April 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 3, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 218780/Z/19/Z
                Award Recipient :
                LES received research and salary funding from the Wellcome Trust for this work (grant 218780/Z/19/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Attitudes
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Psychological Attitudes
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Mental Health and Psychiatry
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Learning and Memory
                Learning
                Human Learning
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Database and Informatics Methods
                Database Searching
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Questionnaires
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Emotions
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Custom metadata
                All data is available from the referenced study reports included in the review.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content623

                Cited by2

                Most referenced authors493