B!RTH: a mixed-methods survey of audience members’ reflections of a global women’s health arts and science programme in England, Ireland, Scotland and Switzerland

Abstract

ObjectivePublic engagement and science communication are growing as an important forum in the design and dissemination of research. The B!RTH programme is a partnership that uses theatre in combination with scientific expert panel discussions to raise awareness about the global inequality in women’s health and access to healthcare. As part of this project, we assessed the views and experiences of audiences participating in B!RTH events.DesignWe conducted a multi-site mixed-methods survey using paper-based questionnaires.SettingsData were collected at four B!RTH theatre and science events: Dublin (Ireland), Edinburgh (Scotland), Geneva (Switzerland) and Liverpool (England) after the performance of four plays and three expert panel discussions.ParticipantsAll audience members.MethodsDescriptive analysis was conducted for the responses to the closed-ended survey questions, and thematic analysis was used for written free text provided.ResultsThe estimated response rate was 42%; 363 members of the audiences responded. Most respondents had been emotionally moved by the performances (92.8%) and felt challenged and provoked (80.7%). Many respondents (73.6%) agreed that their eyes had been opened by new ideas. Five themes emerged from the free-text analysis: (1) an expression of thanks and positive feedback on the content and performance of the plays, (2) the benefit of and innovative use of art and science, (3) personal feelings in response to the plays and panel discussions, (4) the need for action and (5) suggestions for use of the plays and panel discussions in schools and universities to ‘bring to life the human story behind the statistics’.ConclusionsThe B!RTH programme highlights how art and science can be used in partnership and is an effective tool to engage the public, to deliver key messages and to raise awareness about inequalities in global maternal and reproductive healthcare issues.

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

“…Key study characteristics are described in Table 1 . Six of the eight included studies were published between 2015 and 2020 [ 36 – 39 , 41 , 42 ]. Seven of the eight studies used mixed-methods research [ 35 – 40 , 42 ], with one study using quantitative methods alone [ 41 ].…”

“…Data extracted on study characteristics showed that the studies which had separate researcher or evaluation teams were of higher methodological quality [ 37 , 38 , 40 – 42 ]. One study did not explicitly state the relationship between the evaluation and festival teams [ 39 ].…”

“…All other attitude outcomes were evaluated post-attendance. Quantitative methods were frequently used to evaluate attitude, with only two studies adopting qualitative methods, although both these studies were of high methodological quality [ 39 , 40 ]. Three studies looked at attitudinal outcomes involving attendee behavioural intent [ 36 , 37 , 40 ].…”

“…Three studies looked at attitudinal outcomes involving attendee behavioural intent [ 36 , 37 , 40 ]. Two studies evaluated four or more outcomes related to attitude [ 39 , 40 ].…”

“…Engagement was evaluated by all except one of the seven studies which evaluated experience [ 42 ]. Attendee emotional engagement was assessed by five of these seven studies [ 35 – 37 , 39 , 40 ].…”