↓ Skip to main content

Using Participatory Learning

Overview of attention for article published in Research Involvement and Engagement, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Using Participatory Learning & Action (PLA) research techniques for inter-stakeholder dialogue in primary healthcare: an analysis of stakeholders’ experiences
Published in
Research Involvement and Engagement, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40900-017-0077-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. de Brún, M. O’Reilly - de Brún, E. Van Weel-Baumgarten, N. Burns, C. Dowrick, C. Lionis, C. O’Donnell, F. S. Mair, M. Papadakaki, A. Saridaki, W. Spiegel, C. Van Weel, M. Van den Muijsenbergh, A. MacFarlane

Abstract

It is important for health care workers to know the needs and expectations of their patients. Therefore, service users have to be involved in research. To achieve a meaningful dialogue between service users, healthcare workers and researchers, participatory methods are needed. This paper describes how the application of a specific participatory methodology, Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) can lead to such a meaningful dialogue. In PLA all stakeholders are regarded as equal partners and collaborators in research.During 2011-2015, a European project called RESTORE used PLA in Austria, Greece, Ireland, The Netherlands and the UK to investigate how communication between primary health care workers and their migrant patients could be improved.Seventy eight migrants, interpreters, doctors, nurses and other key stakeholders (see Table 2) participated in 62 PLA sessions. These dialogues (involving discussions, activities, PLA techniques and evaluations) were generally 2-3 h long and were recorded and analysed by the researchers.Participants reported many positive experiences about their dialogues with other stakeholders. There was a positive, trusting atmosphere in which all stakeholders could express their views despite differences in social power. This made for better understanding within and across stakeholder groups. For instance a doctor changed her view on the use of interpreters after a migrant explained why this was important. Negative experiences were rare: some doctors and healthcare workers thought the PLA sessions took a lot of time; and despite the good dialogue, there was disappointment that very few migrants used the new interpreting service. Background In order to be effective, primary healthcare must understand the health needs, values and expectations of the population it serves. Recent research has shown that the involvement of service users and other stakeholders and gathering information on their perspectives can contribute positively to many aspects of primary healthcare. Participatory methodologies have the potential to support engagement and dialogue between stakeholders from academic, migrant community and health service settings. This paper focuses on a specific participatory research methodology, Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) in which all stakeholders are regarded as equal partners and collaborators in research.Our research question for this paper was: "Does the application of PLA lead to meaningful engagement of all stakeholders, and if so, what elements contribute to a positive and productive inter-stakeholder dialogue?". Methods We explored the use of PLA in RESTORE, a European FP7-funded project, during 2011-2015 in 5 countries: Austria, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK. The objective of RESTORE was to investigate and support the implementation of guidelines and training initiatives (G/TIs) to enhance communication in cross-cultural primary care consultations with migrants.Seventy eight stakeholders (migrants, interpreters, doctors, nurses and others - see Table 2) participated in a total of 62 PLA sessions (discussions, activities, evaluations) of approximately 2-3 h' duration across the five sites. During the fieldwork, qualitative data were generated about stakeholders' experiences of engagement in this dialogue, by means of various methods including participatory evaluations, researchers' fieldwork reports and researcher interviews. These were analysed following the principles of thematic analysis. Results Stakeholders involved in PLA inter-stakeholder dialogues reported a wide range of positive experiences of engagement, and very few negative experiences. A positive atmosphere during early research sessions helped to create a sense of safety and trust. This enabled stakeholders from very different backgrounds, with different social status and power, to offer their perspectives in a way that led to enhanced learning in the group - they learned with and from each other. This fostered shifts in understanding - for example, a doctor changed her view on interpreted consultations because of the input of the migrant service-users. Conclusion PLA successfully promoted stakeholder involvement in meaningful and productive inter-stakeholder dialogues. This makes it an attractive approach to enhance the further development of health research partnerships to advance primary healthcare.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 128 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 36 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 16%
Social Sciences 21 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Psychology 8 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 38 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,969,318
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from Research Involvement and Engagement
#170
of 385 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,480
of 438,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Involvement and Engagement
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 385 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 438,546 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.