Abstract B2: Applying audience response systems in community-based research
Authors: Davis Jenna L. , McGinnis Kara E. , Walsh Margaret L. , Williams Coni , Green B. Lee , Sneed Kevin , Wathington Deanna , Standifer Maisha , Baldwin Julie 
Published: June 2012

Background: Community-based participatory research methods allow for community engagement in the effort to reduce cancer health disparities. Community engagement involves health professionals becoming a part of the community in order to build trust, share their expertise, learn from the community and empower them to reduce disparities through their own initiatives and ideas. Audience response systems (ARS) are an innovative and engaging way to involve the community and obtain data for research purposes. ARS is an interactive-polling device that uses keypads to report live results via power point. The use of ARS within communities, specifically with underserved populations, unfortunately is very limited. These limitations serve to widen the disparity gap by not delivering new advances in medical knowledge and technology among all population groups.

Applying ARS: ARS was proven successful at the Gathering of Neighborhood Voices Town Hall, sponsored by the Center for Equal Health (CEH). CEH, a National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Exploratory Center of Excellence, is a collaborative approach between the University of South Florida and Moffitt Cancer Center to address and reduce cancer health disparities within minority and underserved populations. The Town Hall included a panel of experts and community members engaging in a dialogue about cancer health disparities. The purpose of the Town Hall was to increase community members’ knowledge and awareness of cancer health disparities; obtain feedback from the community about their needs and their views of cancer; and build a partnership and trust with the community.

Results: Participants responded favorably toward the ARS and enjoyed the added interactions that resulted from this approach. They appreciated being able to “see how everyone else answered” and felt the event was “very helpful and informative.” About 93% of the audience responded they either liked or loved using the system. Importantly, participants stated that they “felt included in the research process.” About 78% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that they felt comfortable sharing their thoughts and opinions during the event. About 63% of participants had never heard of or knew very little about health disparities at the beginning; however, after the discussion, 97% of the audience felt health disparities existed within their community.

Benefits: ARS lets the community answer truthfully, with anonymity, and without fear of repercussion. It allows audience members the ability to easily engage during an event. ARS also gives the community instant research results, which addresses the ethical concerns of returning data to community participants. Health researchers can collect large amounts of data quickly, in a non-threatening way while tracking individual responses anonymously. ARS creates a participatory learning environment by stimulating discussions with community members.

Lessons Learned: Some questions were unable to be captured due to technology challenges so it is important that researchers become familiar with the system before initial use. Implementing an ARS-training for the researchers prior to the event and to pilot-test at the actual event location is ideal.

Researchers should make sure to understand what an appropriate literacy level is for the specific questions they ask.

Conclusion: ARS is beneficial to get feedback from the community on cancer health disparities and issues that are important to them. The use of ARS solved the ethical dilemma that the researchers face when trying to ensure that community members see the results of the research in which they contribute. ARS proved to be an effective tool for successfully accomplishing community-based participatory research.

Citation Information: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20(10 Suppl):B2.