Table 2 Eligibility criteria
Criterion | Inclusion | Exclusion | Justification |
|---|---|---|---|
Population and Sample | Humans | Any study population other than humans, i.e. animal studies | Referring to CBPR partnerships between humans |
Language | Written in English | Any other language that is not written in English | Reviewers only speak English |
Time Period | 1995–2020 | Outside this time period | • Still able to capture a wide breadth of literature within the time when CBPR research became more prominent and defined by the pioneers in the field • Our definition of CBPR is consistent with that defined by Lawrence W. Green and colleagues [1] in the 1995 text “Study of participatory research in health promotion: review and recommendations for development of participatory research in health promotion in Canada” |
Study Focus | 1) Articles that discuss participatory health research and trust OR 2) Articles that discuss social networks and trust | 1) Must be participatory health research, not other forms of participatory research outside of the health context OR 2) Social networks across a variety of disciplines, excluding those with a sole focus on online social networks using platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, with no reference to conceptualising (operationalising or measuring) trust in a relational context 3)Trust is explored in a natural setting and not a laboratory or experimental setting (i.e. a game theory setting) 4)Exclude literature that explores trust in social networks, where trust is the independent variable | 1) One key reason participatory research was developed, historically, was to address social inequities [2, 3] • Ensuring continuity in conceptualisations from the literature to inform the formation of a conceptual framework for participatory health research 2) In our study context, and the context of CBPR more generally, interactions and partnership building are usually about interpersonal face-to-face contact and communication, which is not adequately reflected in social media networks, such as Facebook and Twitter • Online social network platforms (like those above) are looking at social phenomena unrelated to the type of interactions we are interested in uncovering (such as, creating online trust communities, where people share thoughts and opinions with others they may not know, or have had a face-to-face interaction with) [20] 3) Artificial settings may not adequately reflect our study context, for similar reasons to that of online social networks 4)In our study context, we are interested in discovering variables that altered the level of trust, and thus discovering what can promote/discourage trust in a social network |
Type of article | Peer reviewed journal articles or reviews and grey literature. Specifically, grey literature will include theses/dissertations, reports, conference proceedings, editorials, and chapters in a textbook | Any other literature that is not listed in the inclusion criteria, such as websites | • Scoping reviews aim to capture more than peer reviewed and published literature to expansively explore a broad research question • Preliminary searches of grey literature generally revealed those listed in our inclusion criteria • Acknowledging feasibility and time constraints, we felt the literature criteria listed would be sufficient in capturing the necessary literature to inform our review and ultimately, a conceptual framework |
Geographic Location | Any location—an international context | None | Participatory research has applications globally |