Can community engagement occur online: a framework analysis of pandemic-induced changes to a project on antimicrobial resistance (AMR)

Background: From a research perspective the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic impacted the ability of projects to be delivered within their planned timeframes and modalities. Anecdotal evidence suggests this was especially so for community engagement (CE) research which is heavily dependent on close engagement between stakeholders as it seeks to develop equitable partnerships and exchange knowledge on a shared concern. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many CE projects to pause, stop, or move online. However, it is unclear how these emergency modality changes affected the core values and principles of CE research, or the ability of projects to deliver their intended outputs and impacts. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap by designing and testing a framework to assess the rationale for and impact of pandemic-induced changes on a specific CE project.

Methods: Framework analysis is applied to a CE project which originally aimed to co-create arts-based educational materials on the topic of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) with school students and teachers in Nepal. Analyses track the rationale for moving the project online during the COVID-19 pandemic, and consider how this impacted both the outputs of the project and the core values and principles of CE research.

Results: Framework analysis demonstrates that CE interventions can operate online, under emergency pandemic conditions, and produce their planned outputs. However, in this example, online working reduced the numbers and diversity of participants engaged and extended the project timeframe as participants needed extra support to access online platforms. Core values of CE, including equity, sustainability, and flexibility, were compromised as online modes of engagement did not allow full co-creation to occur. However, framework analysis also revealed that there can be unintended benefits such as a greater connection between participants and other research stakeholders due to the smaller number of participants engaged.

Conclusions: This framework can support CE researchers to assess the rationale and impact of project modality changes resulting from emergencies. Retrospective use would allow the CE community to reflect on the impact of previous emergencies. However, the framework can also be employed to look forward and anticipate ways of reacting to future challenges which may have otherwise halted meaningful research activity.