Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014 Jan 8;18(2):274–281. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2013.856503

Table 3.

Community Consultation method-specific evaluations

Method # sites using method How helpful? (median)* Worth resources? (median)* Ways helpful Problems
Open meeting 10 3 2 Broad audience, direct feedback, assessment of support Poor attendance; Difficulty explaining the study/having effective conversation; Can still be costly
Existing meeting 16 4 5 Targeted audience, better attendance, more knowledgeable population; Diversity across sessions, direct feedback, improved meeting dynamics relative to open meetings Time constraints, getting invited and on the agenda, lack of diversity for a given group.
Investigator-initiated meetings 13 4 4 Targeted audience, direct feedback Poor attendance, communication challenges
Focus Groups 10 5 5 Substantive feedback due to interactive, small group; useful for planning other community consultation and public disclosure; using 3rd party lessens influence by investigator Expensive, concerns about representativeness, difficult to get conversation going, challenging to schedule, challenging to report
Phone Survey of random sample 2 5 5 Representativeness, quantitative description of views, IRB satisfaction Once deployed, difficult to change; difficult to design instrument
In-person survey 3 5 5 Large, broad sample, short period of time, cost effective Difficulty recruiting (particularly if no history/connection to seizure), Not 2-way communication
In-person interview 11 4 5 Helps get word out, generate support, access to community; Offers direct feedback. Helps to plan future CC. One-on-one interviews are labor and time-intensive, self-selection
Booth/fair 10 4.5** 4 Large numbers. Facilitates surveys or multiple short conversations. Gives public face of the study, “gets message out.” Can target population of interest (Seizure meetings) or hard-to reach populations Lack of substance/depth of feedback due to distractions, short conversations, and high volume; dependent on event attendance
*

Median on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)

**

Reflects even number of respondents