How are public engagement health festivals evaluated?: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

Susannah  Martin; Charlotte A Chamberlain; Alison C Rivett; Lucy E Selman

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267158

How are public engagement health festivals evaluated? A systematic review with narrative synthesis

Susannah Martin, Charlotte A Chamberlain, Alison C Rivett, Lucy E Selman^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article (Academic Journal) › peer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

132 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The evaluation of public engagement health festivals is of growing importance, but there has been no synthesis of its practice to date. We conducted a systematic review of evidence from the evaluation of health-related public engagement festivals published since 2000 to inform future evaluation. Primary study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Extracted data were integrated using narrative synthesis, with evaluation methods compared with the Queen Mary University of London public engagement evaluation toolkit. 407 database records were screened; eight studies of varied methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. Evaluations frequently used questionnaires to collect mixed-methods data. Higher quality studies had specific evaluation aims, used a wider variety of evaluation methods and had independent evaluation teams. Evaluation sample profiles were often gender-biased and not ethnically representative. Patient involvement in event delivery supported learning and engagement. These findings and recommendations can help improve future evaluations.

Original language	English
Article number	e0267158
Journal	PLoS ONE
Volume	17
Issue number	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267158
Publication status	Published - 23 Aug 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Funding:LESreceivedresearchandsalaryfunding fromtheWellcomeTrustforthiswork(grant 218780/Z/19/Z).Thefundershadnoroleinstudy design,datacollectionandanalysis,decisionto publish,orpreparationofthemanuscript.

Funding Information:
LES received research and salary funding from the Wellcome Trust for this work (grant 218780/Z/19/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 Martin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Research Groups and Themes

Public Engagement
Palliative and End of Life Care

Access to Document

10.1371/journal.pone.0267158Licence: CC BY

Full-text PDF (final published version)
This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via PLOS at https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267158. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.
Final published version, 1.18 MBLicence: CC BY

Handle.net

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{8dd8e0b5e1064c04b50ad79edb6152d2,

title = "How are public engagement health festivals evaluated?: A systematic review with narrative synthesis",

abstract = "The evaluation of public engagement health festivals is of growing importance, but there has been no synthesis of its practice to date. We conducted a systematic review of evidence from the evaluation of health-related public engagement festivals published since 2000 to inform future evaluation. Primary study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Extracted data were integrated using narrative synthesis, with evaluation methods compared with the Queen Mary University of London public engagement evaluation toolkit. 407 database records were screened; eight studies of varied methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. Evaluations frequently used questionnaires to collect mixed-methods data. Higher quality studies had specific evaluation aims, used a wider variety of evaluation methods and had independent evaluation teams. Evaluation sample profiles were often gender-biased and not ethnically representative. Patient involvement in event delivery supported learning and engagement. These findings and recommendations can help improve future evaluations.",

author = "Susannah Martin and Chamberlain, {Charlotte A} and Rivett, {Alison C} and Selman, {Lucy E}",

note = "Funding Information: Funding:LESreceivedresearchandsalaryfunding fromtheWellcomeTrustforthiswork(grant 218780/Z/19/Z).Thefundershadnoroleinstudy design,datacollectionandanalysis,decisionto publish,orpreparationofthemanuscript. Funding Information: LES received research and salary funding from the Wellcome Trust for this work (grant 218780/Z/19/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022 Martin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.",

year = "2022",

month = aug,

day = "23",

doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0267158",

language = "English",

volume = "17",

journal = "PLoS ONE",

issn = "1932-6203",

publisher = "Public Library of Science",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How are public engagement health festivals evaluated?

T2 - A systematic review with narrative synthesis

AU - Martin, Susannah

AU - Chamberlain, Charlotte A

AU - Rivett, Alison C

AU - Selman, Lucy E

N1 - Funding Information: Funding:LESreceivedresearchandsalaryfunding fromtheWellcomeTrustforthiswork(grant 218780/Z/19/Z).Thefundershadnoroleinstudy design,datacollectionandanalysis,decisionto publish,orpreparationofthemanuscript. Funding Information: LES received research and salary funding from the Wellcome Trust for this work (grant 218780/Z/19/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Martin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

PY - 2022/8/23

Y1 - 2022/8/23

N2 - The evaluation of public engagement health festivals is of growing importance, but there has been no synthesis of its practice to date. We conducted a systematic review of evidence from the evaluation of health-related public engagement festivals published since 2000 to inform future evaluation. Primary study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Extracted data were integrated using narrative synthesis, with evaluation methods compared with the Queen Mary University of London public engagement evaluation toolkit. 407 database records were screened; eight studies of varied methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. Evaluations frequently used questionnaires to collect mixed-methods data. Higher quality studies had specific evaluation aims, used a wider variety of evaluation methods and had independent evaluation teams. Evaluation sample profiles were often gender-biased and not ethnically representative. Patient involvement in event delivery supported learning and engagement. These findings and recommendations can help improve future evaluations.

AB - The evaluation of public engagement health festivals is of growing importance, but there has been no synthesis of its practice to date. We conducted a systematic review of evidence from the evaluation of health-related public engagement festivals published since 2000 to inform future evaluation. Primary study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Extracted data were integrated using narrative synthesis, with evaluation methods compared with the Queen Mary University of London public engagement evaluation toolkit. 407 database records were screened; eight studies of varied methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. Evaluations frequently used questionnaires to collect mixed-methods data. Higher quality studies had specific evaluation aims, used a wider variety of evaluation methods and had independent evaluation teams. Evaluation sample profiles were often gender-biased and not ethnically representative. Patient involvement in event delivery supported learning and engagement. These findings and recommendations can help improve future evaluations.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0267158

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0267158

M3 - Article (Academic Journal)

C2 - 35998157

SN - 1932-6203

VL - 17

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

IS - 8

M1 - e0267158

ER -