RESUMO
Participation is widely recognized as an important health determinant for older adults. Exploring interventions to promote active participation of community-dwelling older adults is an important step in translating current knowledge into practice. Few studies have examined community-level interventions to support older adults' participation. The study purpose was to examine the significance of the lived experiences of community-dwelling older adults who participated in an interprofessional healthy aging promotion program. The specific aims were to uncover the narrative significance of the lived experiences and how they evolved and intertwined with the life histories of the older adults 2 years after the intervention ended. A narrative inquiry design was used. Four key informants participated in two semi-structured interviews and a member-checking process. The data were analyzed from a three-dimensional inquiry space of time and continuity, place and context, and social interactions. The findings affirmed three core threads that wove the participants' lived experiences within the program together with their life histories after the intervention. These were enjoyment, learning, and sharing. Four themes revealed the essential elements of the lived experience, and three others exposed participants' growth and life enrichment, all being fundamental to participation. The 3-year community-level intervention was valued and a novel opportunity for facilitating participation and successful aging. It allowed the participants to acquire an evolved vision of self, have meaningful interactions, develop the means to engage in future community activities, implement new self-care strategies, and establish memories and friendships significant for life participation.
RESUMO
Aim: Stakeholder engagement is central to comparative effectiveness research yet there are gaps in definitions of success. We used a framework developed by Lavallee et al. defining effective engagement criteria to evaluate stakeholder engagement during a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were developed from the framework and completed to learn about members' experiences. Interviews were analyzed in a deductive approach for themes related to the effective engagement criteria. Results: Thirteen members participated and described: respect for ideas, time to achieve consensus, access to information and continuous feedback as areas of effective engagement. The primary criticism was lack of diversity. Discussion: Feedback was positive, particularly among themes of respect, trust and competence, and led to development of a list of best practices for engagement. The framework was successful for evaluating engagement. Conclusion: Standardized frameworks allow studies to formally evaluate their stakeholder engagement approach and develop best practices for future research.
What is this article about? This article is about the evaluation of how effective the stakeholder engagement was in a comparative effectiveness research (CER) study funded by the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). The research team found a framework (developed by Lavalle et al.) that defined six different criteria for effective stakeholder engagement, and used that criteria to complete semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders involved with our study. These interviews were reviewed to determine what stakeholder engagement processes were successful and helped provide a list of best practices for stakeholder engagement for other researchers doing CER. What were the results? Stakeholders highlighted respect for their ideas, time to achieve consensus, easy access to information and a continuous feedback loop between study team and stakeholders as effective engagement processes. What do the results mean? These results can help other researchers doing CER learn best practices to implement from the outset of a study to best engage stakeholders in their research. The results also show that having a standardized framework to evaluate stakeholder engagement is important and allows for research teams to formally evaluate their engagement approach and learn what was successful and where there are areas for improvement in future studies.