Where are the Public in Prevention Science? A Scoping Review of Public Involvement in the Development and Evaluation of Family-Based Prevention Interventions.

IF 1.5
Arsha Kaur, Layan Amouri, Ina Koning, Jeremy Segrott
{"title":"Where are the Public in Prevention Science? A Scoping Review of Public Involvement in the Development and Evaluation of Family-Based Prevention Interventions.","authors":"Arsha Kaur, Layan Amouri, Ina Koning, Jeremy Segrott","doi":"10.1007/s10935-026-00953-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Public involvement (PI) - research conducted with or by members of the public - is increasingly recognised as essential to high-quality intervention research. However, its role in Prevention Science, including within family-based interventions, remains unclear. We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley (2005), Levac et al. (2010) and JBI guidance (Peters et al., 2020). Peer-reviewed empirical studies published between January 2022 and December 2024 that reported the development, implementation or evaluation of community-based family prevention interventions were eligible. Searches across four databases identified 540 eligible studies at title/abstract screening. Using a fixed-interval random sampling approach, 81 full texts were reviewed, and 54 studies were included for in-depth analysis (≈ 10% of eligible papers). Data extraction captured the presence, scope, terminology, frameworks, and reported outcomes of PI. Only 3.7% (2/54) of included studies explicitly reported PI, with a further two describing its presence in linked publications from earlier phases of the same research. Within the analytic sample, explicit reporting of public involvement was uncommon across the range of countries, intervention types and research stages represented. Where present, PI was largely confined to intervention development, with no examples of PI informing the design or conduct of evaluations. No study used established PI frameworks (e.g., GRIPP2, Involve). Among the 50 studies with no identified PI, 26/50 (52%) collected participant feedback on intervention experiences, but this was conceptually distinct from PI. Public involvement in research on family-based prevention interventions appears extremely limited. Possible explanations include a genuine lack of PI activity, underreporting, and conceptual confusion between PI and participant feedback. Strengthening PI in Prevention Science will require clearer definitions, shared terminology, capacity building for researchers and public partners, and stronger expectations from journals and funders. Improved reporting will support cross-study learning and the development of good practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":73905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of prevention (2022)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of prevention (2022)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-026-00953-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public involvement (PI) - research conducted with or by members of the public - is increasingly recognised as essential to high-quality intervention research. However, its role in Prevention Science, including within family-based interventions, remains unclear. We conducted a scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley (2005), Levac et al. (2010) and JBI guidance (Peters et al., 2020). Peer-reviewed empirical studies published between January 2022 and December 2024 that reported the development, implementation or evaluation of community-based family prevention interventions were eligible. Searches across four databases identified 540 eligible studies at title/abstract screening. Using a fixed-interval random sampling approach, 81 full texts were reviewed, and 54 studies were included for in-depth analysis (≈ 10% of eligible papers). Data extraction captured the presence, scope, terminology, frameworks, and reported outcomes of PI. Only 3.7% (2/54) of included studies explicitly reported PI, with a further two describing its presence in linked publications from earlier phases of the same research. Within the analytic sample, explicit reporting of public involvement was uncommon across the range of countries, intervention types and research stages represented. Where present, PI was largely confined to intervention development, with no examples of PI informing the design or conduct of evaluations. No study used established PI frameworks (e.g., GRIPP2, Involve). Among the 50 studies with no identified PI, 26/50 (52%) collected participant feedback on intervention experiences, but this was conceptually distinct from PI. Public involvement in research on family-based prevention interventions appears extremely limited. Possible explanations include a genuine lack of PI activity, underreporting, and conceptual confusion between PI and participant feedback. Strengthening PI in Prevention Science will require clearer definitions, shared terminology, capacity building for researchers and public partners, and stronger expectations from journals and funders. Improved reporting will support cross-study learning and the development of good practice.

公众对预防科学的了解程度如何?公众参与以家庭为基础的预防干预措施的发展和评估的范围审查。
公众参与(PI) -与公众或由公众成员进行的研究-越来越被认为是高质量干预研究的关键。然而,它在预防科学中的作用,包括在以家庭为基础的干预措施中的作用仍然不清楚。我们根据Arksey和O'Malley(2005)、Levac等人(2010)和JBI指南(Peters等人,2020)进行了范围审查。在2022年1月至2024年12月期间发表的同行评议的实证研究报告了社区家庭预防干预措施的发展、实施或评估。在四个数据库中进行检索,通过标题/摘要筛选确定了540项符合条件的研究。采用固定间隔随机抽样方法,81篇全文被审查,54篇研究被纳入深入分析(≈10%的合格论文)。数据提取捕获PI的存在、范围、术语、框架和报告的结果。只有3.7%(2/54)的纳入研究明确报告了PI,另有两项研究在同一研究早期阶段的相关出版物中描述了PI的存在。在分析样本中,公众参与的明确报告在所代表的国家、干预类型和研究阶段的范围内并不常见。目前,PI主要局限于干预措施的制定,没有PI为评估的设计或实施提供信息的例子。没有研究使用已建立的PI框架(例如,GRIPP2, involved)。在未确定PI的50项研究中,26/50(52%)收集了参与者对干预经验的反馈,但这在概念上与PI不同。公众对以家庭为基础的预防干预研究的参与似乎极为有限。可能的解释包括真正缺乏PI活动,少报,以及PI和参与者反馈之间的概念混淆。加强预防科学的PI将需要更明确的定义、共享的术语、研究人员和公共伙伴的能力建设,以及期刊和资助者更强的期望。改进的报告将支持跨研究学习和良好实践的发展。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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