The META-Oak Project: Using Photovoice to Investigate Youth Perspectives on Tobacco Companies’ Marketing of E-Cigarettes Toward Adolescents in Oakland

Abstract

The California Adolescent Health Collaborative, a project of the Public Health Institute, in partnership with the University of California, San Francisco’s Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education jointly led a community-based participatory research (CBPR) study engaging youth coresearchers to fill the critical gap in knowledge about youth’s perceptions of electronic cigarette products and how they are marketed toward young people in Oakland. Youth coresearchers who were trained as journalists partnered with the adult investigators to explore the e-cigarette topic from their perspective, embedded in the context of their own experiences and those of others in their communities. The goal of this exploratory CBPR study was to improve understanding of how and why youth (ages: 14-24 years) in Oakland are adopting (or resisting) e-cigarettes, how youth respond to increasing availability of e-cigarettes in their communities, and how they perceive communications about e-cigarettes (e.g., advertising) and in turn communicate about the products to each other.

Children and young people’s contributions to public involvement and engagement activities in health-related research: A scoping review

“…The PRISMA diagram below ( Fig 1 ) illustrates the article search, screening, and review process. The PPIE was undertaken as part of research conducted in the United Kingdom (n = 32) [ 18 – 20 , 22 , 36 – 39 , 42 , 44 , 45 , 47 – 67 ], Australia (n = 3) [ 14 , 43 , 46 ], United States (n = 3) [ 21 , 35 , 41 ], Canada (n = 1) [ 13 ] and New Zealand (n = 1) [ 40 ]. The majority of the articles (n = 37) were published after 2010 [ 13 , 18 – 22 , 35 – 45 , 47 – 52 , 54 – 67 ] with three published between 2000–2010 [ 14 , 46 , 53 ].…”

“…Most articles described a single health research study although four articles [ 39 , 46 , 55 , 56 ] described multiple health research studies within which PPIE was embedded. The most commonly reported research designs were qualitative (n = 20) [ 13 , 18 , 20 – 22 , 36 , 41 – 43 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 57 – 59 , 63 , 65 ] and mixed-methods (n = 11) [ 14 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 46 , 47 , 55 , 60 , 64 , 66 , 67 ]; of these studies, five (qualitative n = 1, and mixed methods n = 4) drew on a participatory methodology [ 35 , 36 , 41 – 43 ]. The remaining studies included randomised control trials (n = 4) [ 19 , 37 , 38 , 44 ], case study (n = 2) [ 49 , 52 ] or systematic review (n = 1) [ 61 ].…”

“…Overall, there was the greater clarity in reporting on the aim of the PPIE (n = 39) [ 13 , 14 , 18 – 22 , 35 – 43 , 45 – 67 ], the demographics of the PPIE populations involved (n = 35) [ 13 , 14 , 18 – 22 , 35 – 39 , 41 , 42 , 45 – 52 , 54 – 56 , 58 – 67 ] and the methods used to engage young people in PPIE (n = 40) [ 13 , 14 , 18 – 22 , 35 – 67 ]. The clarity of reporting was mixed on the PPIE definition used (n = 22) [ 13 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 37 – 39 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 58 , 60 – 63 , 66 , 67 ], the impact of PPIE (n = 28) [ 13 , 14 , 18 – 22 , …”

“…The clarity of reporting was mixed on the PPIE definition used (n = 22) [ 13 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 37 – 39 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 53 , 58 , 60 – 63 , 66 , 67 ], the impact of PPIE (n = 28) [ 13 , 14 , 18 – 22 , 35 , 36 , 38 – 41 , 43 – 46 , 49 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 60 – 66 ], contextual and process factors affecting PPIE (n = 26) [ 13 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 35 – 39 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 50 – 55 , 60 – 63 , 66 , 67 ] and critical learning from the PPIE (n = 27) [ 13 ,…”

“…Commonly, the term patient and public involvement (PPI) [ 18 – 20 , 36 , 37 , 44 , 45 , 47 – 49 , 54 – 58 , 60 , 64 – 67 ] was used, alongside terms such as involvement [ 38 , 53 , 61 ], user involvement [ 50 , 52 ], advisory [ 40 ], and engagement [ 39 ]. Where PPIE was integral to the research methodology, participatory methodology terms were frequently used included participatory design [ 13 , 14 , 43 , 46 , 51 , 59 ], community-based participatory research (CBPR) [ 41 ], peer research [ 35 ], co-research [ 42 , 63 ], co-design [ 21 ], and co-production [ 62 ]. One study described adopting a child rights based approach (CRBA) [ 22 ].…”