Who is the emergency care community? A qualitative exploration of stakeholder roles and relationships in engaged research within a South African provincial emergency care system

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
African Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2026-03-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-04 DOI:10.1016/j.afjem.2026.100950
Robert Holliman, Willem Stassen, Colleen Saunders
{"title":"Who is the emergency care community? A qualitative exploration of stakeholder roles and relationships in engaged research within a South African provincial emergency care system","authors":"Robert Holliman,&nbsp;Willem Stassen,&nbsp;Colleen Saunders","doi":"10.1016/j.afjem.2026.100950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Effective emergency care (EC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) depends on evidence that is relevant, implementable, and locally informed. Engaged research offers a means to achieve this, yet practical understanding of how to identify and involve communities remains limited. Defining the “community” is a critical but underexplored step, and little is known about how engagement operates within LMIC EC systems. This study explored stakeholder perspectives on the composition and relationships of the EC community.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and descriptive content analysis exploring stakeholder perspectives on the EC community. Purposive and snowball sampling ensured diverse representation. Transcripts were analysed inductively drawing on Braun and Clarke’s thematic framework and reported in accordance with COREQ guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirty stakeholders participated, including emergency physicians, nurses, prehospital providers, academics, policymakers, and community representatives, many holding overlapping roles. Analysis identified three overarching categories:(1) breadth, variability, and ambiguity within the community;(2) fragmentation and exclusion; and (3) engagement potential and the role of frontline clinicians.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This study highlights the complexity of defining the EC community, with boundaries that are broad, variable, and often contested. Participants identified the absence or unclear roles of key stakeholders, including patients, decision-makers, and frontline clinicians, within research processes. Fragmentation and limited trust were viewed as major barriers to meaningful engagement, reinforcing the need for stronger, more transparent relationships within the community. Frontline clinicians were consistently recognised as underutilised yet uniquely positioned to connect clinical realities with academic research and community priorities. Strengthening engaged research in this context will require clearer guidance on how and when to involve stakeholders, structured mechanisms to build and sustain trust, and practical support for clinician participation. Together, these steps could help embed engagement more deeply into research culture and enhance the relevance and impact of EC scholarship.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48515,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"16 1","pages":"Article 100950"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X2600008X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Effective emergency care (EC) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) depends on evidence that is relevant, implementable, and locally informed. Engaged research offers a means to achieve this, yet practical understanding of how to identify and involve communities remains limited. Defining the “community” is a critical but underexplored step, and little is known about how engagement operates within LMIC EC systems. This study explored stakeholder perspectives on the composition and relationships of the EC community.

Method

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and descriptive content analysis exploring stakeholder perspectives on the EC community. Purposive and snowball sampling ensured diverse representation. Transcripts were analysed inductively drawing on Braun and Clarke’s thematic framework and reported in accordance with COREQ guidelines.

Results

Thirty stakeholders participated, including emergency physicians, nurses, prehospital providers, academics, policymakers, and community representatives, many holding overlapping roles. Analysis identified three overarching categories:(1) breadth, variability, and ambiguity within the community;(2) fragmentation and exclusion; and (3) engagement potential and the role of frontline clinicians.

Conclusions

This study highlights the complexity of defining the EC community, with boundaries that are broad, variable, and often contested. Participants identified the absence or unclear roles of key stakeholders, including patients, decision-makers, and frontline clinicians, within research processes. Fragmentation and limited trust were viewed as major barriers to meaningful engagement, reinforcing the need for stronger, more transparent relationships within the community. Frontline clinicians were consistently recognised as underutilised yet uniquely positioned to connect clinical realities with academic research and community priorities. Strengthening engaged research in this context will require clearer guidance on how and when to involve stakeholders, structured mechanisms to build and sustain trust, and practical support for clinician participation. Together, these steps could help embed engagement more deeply into research culture and enhance the relevance and impact of EC scholarship.
谁是急救社区?在南非省级紧急护理系统内从事研究的利益相关者角色和关系的定性探索
在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs),有效的急诊护理(EC)取决于相关的、可实施的和当地知情的证据。参与研究为实现这一目标提供了一种手段,但对如何识别和参与社区的实际理解仍然有限。定义“社区”是一个关键但未被充分探索的步骤,对于LMIC - EC系统内的参与是如何运作的,我们知之甚少。本研究探讨了利益相关者对欧共体社区组成和关系的看法。方法采用半结构化访谈和描述性内容分析进行定性研究,探讨利益相关者对EC社区的看法。有目的和滚雪球抽样确保了多样化的代表性。根据Braun和Clarke的主题框架对转录本进行归纳分析,并根据COREQ指南进行报告。结果共有30名利益相关者参与,包括急诊医生、护士、院前服务提供者、学者、政策制定者和社区代表,其中许多人的角色重叠。分析确定了三个主要类别:(1)社区内的广度、可变性和模糊性;(2)碎片化和排斥;(3)一线临床医生的参与潜力和作用。本研究强调了定义EC社区的复杂性,其边界广泛、多变且经常存在争议。与会者指出,在研究过程中,主要利益相关者(包括患者、决策者和一线临床医生)的角色缺失或不明确。分裂和有限的信任被视为有意义的参与的主要障碍,加强了对社区内更强大、更透明关系的需求。前线临床医生一直被认为是未充分利用的,但在将临床现实与学术研究和社区优先事项联系起来方面具有独特的优势。在这方面加强参与式研究将需要更明确的指导,说明如何以及何时让利益攸关方参与,建立和维持信任的结构化机制,以及为临床医生参与提供实际支持。总之,这些步骤可以帮助将参与更深入地融入研究文化,并增强欧共体奖学金的相关性和影响力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
78
审稿时长
85 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书