Building trust and inclusion with under-served groups: a public involvement project employing a knowledge mobilisation approach

Abstract
Background
Certain groups are commonly under-served by health research due to exclusionary models of research design/delivery. Working in partnership with under-served groups is key to improving inclusion. This project aimed to explore the use of a knowledge mobilisation approach to start building partnerships with under-served groups based on trust and mutual understanding.

Methods
This co-produced public involvement project employed a knowledge mobilisation approach. The project team involved public contributors from four community organisations and staff from two Universities. A series of ‘community conversations’ were co-produced. These involved open discussions with local people in community settings. The conversations provide an informal space to engage in a multi-directional dialogue about health research and incorporated approaches such as prompt questions, live illustrations, and themed boards. The findings were reviewed collectively. Dissemination/feedback activities and lessons learned for future engagement with community organisations and under-served groups were also co-produced.

Results
Over 100 people attended the community conversations. Attendees varied widely in their sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status and ethnicity) and brought diverse lived experiences (e.g., experiences of homelessness and disability). A strong appetite for change and desire to mobilise public knowledge were evident. Attendees reported wide-ranging barriers to inclusion in health research and suggested ways to address them. Three inter-related take-home messages were identified: ensure relevance, appreciation, and trust; prioritise language and accessibility needs; and maximise flexibility in all research-related activities. Feedback about the community conversations and dissemination activities was largely positive, with all parties planning to continue the partnership building. The lessons learned provide practical suggestions for promoting inclusion in research and highlight the importance of addressing research teams’ training/support needs.

Conclusions
Knowledge mobilisation was a valuable approach for facilitating multi-directional dialogues and relationship building between local communities and university teams. This approach enabled co-creation of new knowledge related to inclusion and partnership working in health research. The project has provided a firm foundation to build upon. However, creating sustainable, inclusive public partnerships is likely to require systemic changes, such as weighting of fundings schemes to projects that prioritise inclusion of under-served groups throughout the research cycle.