"What Do You Need? What Are You Experiencing?" Relationship Building and Power Dynamics in Participatory Research Projects: Critical Self-Reflections of Researchers.

Participatory approaches create opportunities for cooperation, building relationships, gaining knowledge, rethinking, and eventually changing power structures. From an international perspective, the article looks at the historical development of different participatory approaches in which building relationships and managing the balance of power between persons engaged in participatory research are central. The authors present and critically reflect on four research projects to show how they understood and implemented participatory research in different ways and what they have learned from their respective experiences. The "PaSuMi" project worked in the context of addiction prevention with migrants and provides a glimpse into different contexts of participatory research. The initiator of the study "Back into life-with a power wheelchair" works with post-stroke individuals who use the assistive device in community mobility and reflects on the shifting and intertwining roles of participants. In the research project "Workshops for implementation of expanded community nursing", new professional roles for nurses in community nursing were developed; here limitations to participation and ways to deal with them are illustrated. Finally, the "DIPEx" project deals with challenges of enabling participation of persons with multiple sclerosis via narrative interviews on the experience of health and illness. All examples underline the necessity of a permanent reflection on relationships and power dynamics in participatory research processes.

[Evidence-based primary prevention and health promotion: methods and procedures in 5 research consortia]. / Evidenzbasierung in Primärprävention und Gesundheitsförderung: Methoden und Vorgehensweisen in 5 Forschungsverbünden.

Between 2014 and 2022, the 5 German research networks AEQUIPA, CAPITAL4HEALTH, HLCA, PartKommPlus, and SMARTACT are investigating topics of primary prevention and health promotion with the aim of further deepening the evidence base in these areas. The work of the 5 research networks for primary prevention and health promotion is presented, analysed, and discussed from an internal perspective. A model of evidence-based public health serves as a structuring framework.The 5 research networks use a variety of access routes for the generation of evidence with regard to the participation of nonacademic, civil society actors and users. There is a wide range of study designs - from randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews to diverse qualitative designs. The use of models and theories supports the evidence base. Beyond evidence generation, all research networks focus on at least exemplary implementation of new evidence.Due to the diversity of methods, a diversified evidence-based approach can be realised, taking into account network-specific aspects. Structural circumstances limit the further systematic strengthening of the evidence base. In particular, the involvement of nonacademic, civil society actors for the work with hard-to-reach target groups often cannot be financed or is considered too time consuming under the given circumstances. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of a flexible spectrum of methods, employing both digital and analogue methods in a meaningful way.

[Funding conditions and framework conditions for participatory health research from a project's perspective]. / Förder- und Rahmenbedingungen für Partizipative Gesundheitsforschung aus Projektsicht.

Participatory Health Research is a unique research approach that needs unique funding conditions. In April 2020, the German journal Gesundheitswesen published an article that recommends reasonable measures for funding Participatory Health Research. Some of the aspects mentioned are illustrated in the present article with practical examples.Three examples of experiences are introduced to explain the manifold and different conditions for applying for funds for participatory research projects. Example 1 shows good cooperation between the applicant and funder, allowing participatory processes. The conditions for funding in example 2 - despite being focused on participatory involvement - did not allow effective participation. Example 3 deals with the personal, legitimate research interests of affected people, who are only partially reflected in the current funding landscape and hardly receive any funding.The experiences regarding the funding of participatory research are quite different. There are positive cases, however experiences in which applicants meet obstacles that hinder participative collaboration prevail. This particularly concerns the joint development of research tenders (issues, research questions, design) by all relevant stakeholders. Therefore, to effectively foster participatory health research, more calls for proposals are needed that are flexible, have prolonged application periods, allow multilevel funding, and are open to nonacademic stakeholders.

[Participatory research in Germany - quo vadis?] / Partizipative Gesundheitsforschung in Deutschland ­ quo vadis?

GOAL: Participatory Health Research (PHR) approaches are becoming more common in Germany. In this paper, appropriate support strategies for the funding and implementation of PHR projects in Germany are described. METHOD: Nine strategies are discussed, based on the research experience of the German Network for Participatory Health Research (PartNet) and other international networks. RESULTS: In order to foster PHR in Germany, 1) funds have to be available for those participating in the research process, and 2) for the participatory processes themselves; 3) the requirement to promote participation should be incorporated routinely in tender notices, as well as 4) in special funding programs as a funding requirement; 5) participation in research projects should be part of a formative evaluation; 6) methodology development in this field needs specific funding; 7) review processes for research bids need to be adapted to take into account the specifics of PHR; 8) coordination needs to be established across participatory research projects; 9) and successful models and examples of participation in research should be disseminated. CONCLUSION: It is necessary to adapt research funding programs in Germany to the specific requirements of PHR so as to promote meaningful participation on the part of non-academic partners and to avoid tokenism.