RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Behavioral medicine has made key contributions toward improving health outcomes. Engaging community partners in research is critical to addressing persistent health inequities. The aim of this scoping review was to explore how researchers engaged community partners within the field of behavioral medicine research from 2005 to 2023. METHOD: Publication databases and gray literature were searched for research that engaged community partners to address questions relevant to behavioral medicine. Articles were screened by title and abstract, and then by full text. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were coded using the framework provided by the Engagement Navigator to identify engagement approaches, methods, and tools and when they were used during the research. RESULTS: Of 1486 articles initially identified, 58 met the inclusion criteria. Most articles used well-known approaches (e.g., community-based participatory research; 67%), methods (e.g., advisory committees; 59%), and tools (e.g., interviews; 41%), and engaged with healthcare service providers (62%) and/or patients (53%). Community partners were most often included in research planning and design (79%), and less often in dissemination (45%). CONCLUSION: Community engagement has considerable potential to address health inequities. Our assessment of the approaches, methods, and tools used by behavioral medicine researchers to engage with a diverse range of community partners points toward promising strategies for enhancing the impact of community engagement. Researchers should incorporate explicit descriptions of community engagement strategies in publications, an outcome that could be facilitated by clear publishing guidelines, structured reporting tools, and clear messaging from funders about the value of community engagement in behavioral medicine research.
RESUMO
When the Medical Library Association identified questions critical for the future of the profession, it assigned groups to use systematic reviews to find the answers to these questions. Group 6, whose question was on emerging technologies, recognized early on that the systematic review process would not work well for this question, which looks forward to predict future trends, whereas the systematic review process looks back in time. We searched for new methodologies that were more appropriate to our question, developing a process that combined systematic review, text mining, and visualization techniques. We then discovered tech mining, which is very similar to the process we had created. In this paper, we describe our research design and compare tech mining and systematic review methodologies. There are similarities and differences in each process: Both use a defined research question, deliberate database selection, careful and iterative search strategy development, broad data collection, and thoughtful data analysis. However, the focus of the research differs significantly, with systematic reviews looking to the past and tech mining mainly to the future. Our comparison demonstrates that each process can be enhanced from a purposeful consideration of the procedures of the other. Tech mining would benefit from the inclusion of a librarian on their research team and a greater attention to standards and collaboration in the research project. Systematic reviews would gain from the use of tech mining tools to enrich their data analysis and corporate management communication techniques to promote the adoption of their findings.
