Community-Based Participatory Research in the News: A Qualitative Case Study of the Online Media Characterization of a French Health Study

Representation of Participatory Public Health Research in the Media

Understanding the media’s portrayal of scientific research is important as it is one of the primary avenues for the widespread dissemination of study findings. For example, even as scholarly publishing has moved to electronic databases, it remains largely inaccessible to interested publics (Trench, 2008) behind both discipline-specific language intended for a particular academic audience and/or financially infeasible paywalls. Alternatively, per diffusion of innovation theory, the media are a channel through which the diffusion of new ideas, such as scientific findings, can be communicated across multiple interested publics in a network over time (VanCour, 2017). This is not without its challenges though, often requiring journalists to take up the interpretive role of science communicators (Trench, 2008). Together, this precipitates an interest in assessing the effectiveness of the media in communicating a given scientific finding—in terms of both accuracy and reach—as an indicator of the range of information to which interested publics may be exposed.

With the emergence of new media, particularly online media, capacities to communicate scientific findings beyond researchers, and to do so symmetrically, have dramatically expanded (Borchelt, 2008; Priest, 2016). In contrast to vertical approaches to information dissemination, online media, ranging from converted print publications to user-generated blog posts, make the horizontal transmission of information simpler (VanCour, 2017). As summarized in the participatory model of science communication, which “acknowledges various publics as being equal with scientists and policymakers in reflecting upon, sharing knowledge about, creating new knowledge (. . .), and making decisions about science that affect society,” this serves to democratize the science communication process (Metcalfe, 2019, p. 385). However, this plurality of science communicators can create new challenges, such as the difficulty an interested readership may face in discerning legitimate claims from illegitimate ones (Priest, 2016, VanCour, 2017). Importantly, these online communication channels can also be subject to analysis, facilitating the study of how innovative ideas may be diffused via emergent media technologies.

Studying both innovation in dissemination and the democratization of science communication via online media becomes especially salient in the context of community-based participatory research (CBPR). CBPR is an approach to scientific inquiry in the field of public health that aims to facilitate collaborative and equitable partnership among community, academic, and other stakeholders so as to leverage the strengths and center the priorities of the community in improving population health (Israel et al., 2018). CBPR seeks to dismantle traditional approaches to identifying what research questions are pursued and notions of who can meaningfully participate in the scientific enterprise by following several principles: emphasizing public health problems of local relevance; prioritizing the strengths, resources, and relationships within the community; equally privileging research and action; and committing to sustainability beyond a single research project or grant (Israel et al., 2018). CBPR’s tenets also stipulate community member engagement in the dissemination of findings (Israel et al., 2018), making the analysis of how a CBPR study is presented in online media of particular interest.

Importantly, how the media present science can be affected by the positionality of the science and the researchers with respect to “epistemic cultures” (Cetina, 2009). Knowledge produced in more autonomous, tightly bounded disciplinary arenas that are socially segregated from society, is often treated differently than knowledge produced in more heterogeneous, culturally resonant, or politically sensitive sciences, like participatory public health research. In the latter case, the science can often be “medialized,” or extensively discussed in the media, in a way that is “plural in its participants and in the arguments used” and often with some degree of controversy (Schäfer, 2009, p. 475). In other words, science, the media, and social contexts become tangibly and intricately interwoven. For the dissemination of participatory public health research, this can be positive, by increasing coverage, generating public discussion, and potentially influencing policy.

Since, to our knowledge, coverage of participatory public health research by the online media has not been empirically explored, we ground our study in the literature on public health research and the media more broadly. While this literature suggests that the media play a key role in communicating public health findings, the particular foci of the studies and their respective findings vary (Covolo et al., 2019;Linas, 2019; Wilson et al., 2004). Some studies comprise content analyses to explore sources of information used by journalists in order to explain a finding. For example, one study found that the media cited experts in the field more often than peer-reviewed studies (Wilson et al., 2004) and another found that the media prioritized perceptions of health risks over scientific quantification of risks (Claassen et al., 2012). Other studies looked at how media coverage changes over time. For example, in a longitudinal analysis of German print media, researchers found that while initial coverage overstated health risks associated with a particular exposure, later coverage acknowledged scientific uncertainty on this topic and provided more comprehensive information (Elvers et al., 2009). Still other research focused on the broader implications of media coverage for public opinion (Covolo et al., 2019) and policy change (Barnes et al., 2008). For example, a study on the media coverage of U.S. community water fluoridation referenda brought to public vote found that a false balance of the scientific evidence was presented and that negative representations in the media were associated with community water fluoridation rejection. Authors attributed the latter finding to media’s influence on public sentiment (Curiel et al., 2018). False balances in media representation have also been linked to public perceptions that the scientific community is divided where it may not be, suggesting that the media’s coverage of a particular topic may influence the understanding of interested publics (Dixon& Clarke, 2013). However, media scholars caution against strong conclusions regarding media “power” over public perception (Couldry, 2017).

Given the importance of public engagement for participatory science, better understanding how the online media covered a public health study that used an innovative CBPR approach is informative. To our knowledge, there have been no other content analyses on the online media coverage of participatory studies, a gap this article aims to fill.

Community-Based Participatory Research in France: The Fos EPSEAL Study

Participatory research methods have a history of implementation in U.S.-based environmental health justice studies (Cohen et al., 2012; Farquhar& Wing, 2003;Garzón et al., 2013; Gonzalez et al., 2011); however, to the best of our knowledge, the first CBPR health study in France—Fos EPSEAL—occurred in 2016 (Allen et al., 2016). Fos EPSEAL, the study at the center of our media analysis, implemented a cross-sectional design to capture the prevalence of health outcomes in two port towns in the Étang de Berre region of southern France: Fos-sur-Mer and Port-Saint-Louis-du-Rhône (Allen, 2018). This industrial port area is a hub for chemical facilities, oil refineries, gas depots, and steel installations, including approximately 50 Seveso high-hazard threshold facilities (Allen, 2018).

The Fos EPSEAL study was developed in response to concerns among residents regarding previous research in the region (Allen et al., 2016). Specifically, residents perceived that prior studies had not assessed their health-related questions. Furthermore, residents and local doctors expressed concern over findings that suggested that there were few health problems present in the region (which they perceived as inconsistent with their own observations and experiences) and/or inconclusive results (Allen, 2018; Allen et al., 2016).

Funded by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement, et du Travail; ANSES), ¹ a French-American collaborative research team designed and implemented the Fos EPSEAL study. The study was codesigned with residents and aimed to collect prevalence data on health outcomes of local interest (Allen, 2018), both defining features of CBPR. Residents informed the research questions and data collection survey tool through an in-depth interview process, analyzed the preliminary data during a series of community workshops, and proposed intervention recommendations based on the findings (Allen, 2018).

Since the dissemination of the final health report in French (Allen et al., 2017) and a peer-reviewed academic journal article in English (Cohen et al., 2018), residents and local organizations have used the Fos EPSEAL study’s findings to (1) challenge industry repermitting and expansion applications and include consideration for cumulative impacts of environmental exposures in these decisions; (2) advocate for expanded health clinics and access to medical specialists; (3) advocate for improved air quality warning systems, improved public transportation to reduce car traffic, indoor play facilities for schools, and more stringent regulations for cleaner industrial processes; and (4) encourage more comprehensive patient exams in healthcare settings based on the symptoms and illnesses documented in the study (Allen, 2018). Beyond the initial study, the original French-American research team has maintained local partnerships by consulting with a local research group that screened for environmental toxicants in residents’ blood and urine (Goix et al., 2018). Furthermore, given that novel implementation of CBPR may be cost-prohibitive due to the need to involve outside researchers familiar with the approach, the French-American collaborative team also held a workshop in the summer of 2018 for researchers and community members to build local capacity for future CBPR work with reduced consultation costs.

The Present Study

With the novelty of the CBPR approach in this context, as well as its application to a topic of great public interest, the Fos EPSEAL study garnered the online media’s attention, providing a unique opportunity for assessment. Thus, the present analysis sought to answer the following research question: “How was the Fos EPSEAL study taken up and framed by the French online media?” Specifically, how did online media (1) communicate and reflect the CBPR approach and (2) disseminate the findings generated in the Fos EPSEAL study?

We ground this analysis in diffusion of innovations theory and the participatory model of science communication. Given its application to both the transmission of new ideas across interested publics and the proliferation of new media (VanCour, 2017), diffusion of innovations theory helps us frame the dissemination of (1) the novel CBPR approach in this context and (2) the scientific findings from the Fos EPSEAL study—both via a still expanding new media technology. To this, the participatory model of science communication adds a centering of various interested publics as science communicators and therefore knowledge cocreators (Metcalfe, 2019). Taken together, these theories help frame the aforementioned literature and scaffold considerations of the online media as an essential outlet to comprehensively and symmetrically report findings and circulate data that are consistent with the tenets of CBPR.

Inclusion Methodology

The present analysis included online media articles that were publicly accessible via the internet. To identify the final yield for this analysis, we began with an initial pool consisting of all known articles published in the French media between January 2017 and January 2018 on the topic of the Fos EPSEAL CBPR study (N = 80; Allen et al., 2017). To our knowledge, no articles were published outside France on this study. This study period sought to capture initial media coverage after the Fos EPSEAL report was first released to the public, accompanied by a press release disseminated to the media (January 2017), as well as coverage following a press event organized by the research team to formally share the report findings with the media (March 10, 2017).

These publications were then screened for media type, and any coverage that was not available in written form online was excluded (e.g., video only, print only; N = 23).Additionally, web addresses that were no longer operational (N = 2) yielded error messages stating, “Content has moved” (N = 2), or those that required a subscription for access (N = 2) were excluded. Exclusion of publications for which written online analogs were unavailable, content had moved, or subscriptions were required was justified by these materials being less likely to have been accessed by the general publics; this also facilitated a uniform analytic approach. Finally, publications that were reposted from other online media outlets were excluded as duplicates (N = 7). This led to a final yield of 44 unique online publications for this analysis that consisted of traditional news writing, feature articles, editorials, blog posts, interviews, and other opinion pieces (Figure 1). Online articles came from a diverse array of media outlets, including some of France’s national daily newspapers (e.g., Le Figaro, Le Parisien), the two regional daily newspapers (e.g., La Marseillaise, La Provence), weekly newspapers (e.g., Le Point), websites for radio and TV outlets (e.g., Radio Bleue, FranceTVInfo), online-only independent news outlets (e.g., Marsactu), and other outlets engaging in mass communication efforts (e.g., Secrétariat Permanent pour la Prévention des Pollution, blogs). A complete list of these publications is available on request from the corresponding author.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Flowchart of selection strategy for publication inclusion in online media analysis.

Analysis

Our analysis focused on identifying what features of CBPR were discussed and to what extent online media coverage reflected CBPR’s tenets, as well as the Fos EPSEAL study’s findings. We reviewed the 44 online publications using a priori specified codes that reflected the major principles of CBPR (Israel et al., 2018), including whether the news media (1) highlighted that the research was guided by problems of local relevance, (2) reported on research and/or action steps, (3) demonstrated the project’s commitment to sustainability, (4) emphasized how the study built on community strengths and resources, and (5) attempted to portray all partners involved in the research and its dissemination. Additional codes assessed (6) whether comparisons were made with prior “traditional” research studies and the nature of those comparisons; (7) if CBPR was described and, if so, the description’s accuracy; (8) how the methodological rigor of the study was appraised; and (9) if the study findings were accurately portrayed.

Guided by these codes, we then performed a two-stage qualitative content analysis. Stage 1 comprised the main analysis, in which we extracted evidence of the codes from articles published between January 2017 and January 2018. In Stage 2, we implemented a stratified analysis to descriptively assess how a unique event that occurred during the study period may have affected online media coverage. On March 10, 2017, the research team hosted a press conference during which the Fos EPSEAL report was formally released to the media. Local residents were also invited, and those in attendance during the event were engaged by representatives of the press, including the Agence France-Presse (French Associated Press). This stratified analysis descriptively assessed if and how publications prior to the press event in March 2017 (N = 32) differed from those published postpress event (N = 12). Author 1 led the qualitative coding, which entailed completing a grid of the above nine items for each publication. Author 2 then reviewed all coding decisions. In the instance of discordance in coding decisions, all three authors convened to discuss until a consensus was reached. Once data were extracted, Author 3 reviewed codes and advised regarding their broader interpretation. Quotes from the articles included in the present manuscript were translated into English by Author 1, and translations were reviewed by Author 2 (Authors 1 and 2 are proficient in both French and English). A table of the original French language quotes and their English language translations is available on request from the corresponding author.

Emphasis Placed on Problems of Local Relevance

From January 2017 through January 2018, most (73%) publications emphasized the salience of the research topic to residents. Specifically, articles highlighted residents’ concern over the health impacts of the environmental quality. This was, in part, facilitated by several publications (N = 8) directly quoting from the Fos EPSEAL report when characterizing the relevance of this work to local residents:

Residents are worried about the quality of their environment, the local sources of pollution, and their links to their health. They chronicle a pollution that has become ordinary, industrial overflows that accumulate with other forms of local exposure to pollution. (Ulmer, 2017)

Other publications further emphasized that these concerns were long-standing and suggested that residents had previously requested that action be taken to better understand and address them. Several publications quoted the official statement made by Fos-sur-Mer Mayor René Raimondi on his review of the final Fos EPSEAL report, while others quoted interviews with members of the Fos EPSEAL French-American collaborative research team:

For many years, some of the residents of this particularly polluted zone have been asking the public authorities to evaluate the health impact of neighboring factories. (Vaysse, 2017)

We have asked the state for the last ten years, in vain. . . . to see if there are indeed more diseases [here] than elsewhere -Mayor René Raimondi, Fos-Sur-Mer. (Leras, 2017)

Prior to this study, many residents] had expended a crazy amount of energy to get health information [from the state] without any of their demands being met -Yolaine Ferrier, member of Fos EPSEAL research team. (Arnichand, 2017)

These excerpts illustrate a prevailing emphasis across publications on the Fos EPSEAL study’s relevance to local residents’ concerns.

Similar Emphasis Placed on Research and Action Steps

The Fos EPSEAL study found an elevated prevalence of asthma, cancer, endocrine disease, and Type 1 diabetes in Fos-sur-Mer and Port-Saint-Louis-du-Rhône compared with France overall. Approximately half of the articles focused primarily on these findings (N = 23), while the other half alluded to action steps, though generally using nonspecific language (N = 21). For example, several quoted Mayor Raimondi as he “demanded” that the government respond to the Fos EPSEAL findings (N = 8):

The mayor of Fos-sur-Mer, René Raimondi, in an official statement, demanded that “the State services react.”“If, today, there is a serious problem that threatens the health of our residents, it must be named and it must be resolved.” (Santé, 2017)

Since this analysis is restricted to articles published in the year following the initial release of the Fos EPSEAL report, the use of nonspecific, action-oriented language might be expected, as developing clear action steps can take time. Still, several articles briefly discussed how these findings may be used to encourage action among policymakers (N = 3) or described action steps taken by residents prior to the start of the EPSEAL study (N = 1):

From now on, the residents of the industrialized zones of the Étang de Berre region will be able to brandish this study like a weapon in order to defend their interests and to weigh in on the local discussions. (Labaune, 2017)

The study. . . . followed a movement against the construction of the incinerator in Fos-Sur-Mer that marked the 2000s. (Arnichand, 2017)

Overall, this analysis suggests that while similar emphasis was placed on research and action steps, the publications provided more detailed accounts of the study findings than they did actionable next steps.

Characterizations of the CBPR Approach and the Portrayal of Community Involvement in the Research Process

Fewer than half of the publications in this analysis mentioned that a CBPR approach was implemented in the Fos EPSEAL study (N = 19). Of these, the extent to which the CBPR approach was described varied widely. Several articles stated that a participatory study had been conducted, often inadvertently, when defining the EPSEAL acronym (Étude Participative de Santé Environmentelle Ancrée Localement, or Participatory Study in Environmental Health Anchored Locally). Further explanation of what a participatory study entails was limited (N = 12):

A participatory study was launched, using a health-environment research methodology developed in the United States. (Jobert, 2017)

[This participatory study] is based on a method of testimonials from the population. (Bargiacchi, 2017)

Other articles appeared to misidentify the participatory characteristics of the study. Specifically, the data collection methods (key informant interviews, survey) were perceived as the participatory elements of the research process (N = 10). As such, the publications largely presented the community-researcher partnership as the research team conducting the study and residents contributing by completing the survey.

[The method] consists of directly involving residents who are randomly sampled to complete a survey/questionnaire. (Labaune, 2017)

While several articles directly quoted various partners in the research process, including members of the research team, other scientific experts, and the mayor, few quoted self-identified community members (N = 8).

Seven articles reported that the participatory approach was “an innovative method” or “a novel methodology in the French context that had been imported from the United States.” Others went on to define the participatory approach as a combination of “sociology, epidemiology, and anthropology” (N = 2). Nine articles described how residents were integral to the research process from problem definition, to survey tool development, to data collection and analysis:

The study was conducted in two stages. From June to December 2015, researchers went door-to-door in both cities to 816 residents. After communicating the preliminary [survey] results, analysis workshops took place through December 2016. This methodology, which is being used for the first time in Europe and was imported from the US, integrates residents [into the research]. (Descours, 2017)

Evaluation of Methodological Rigor

A majority of the publications commented on the Fos EPSEAL study’s methodological rigor (N = 29). These articles primarily reported on study design characteristics that supported drawing inference from the survey sample to the Fos-sur-Mer and Port-Saint-Louis-du-Rhône source populations. There was consistent use of language, such as “randomly selected sample,” across publications to indicate representativeness of the study subjects to the source population. One publication contrasted the probability sampling approach in the EPSEAL study with nonprobability sampling approaches used in other similar studies:

The scientists therefore chose to analyze a sample representative of the population of the two cities. . . . randomly selected by random sampling to ensure the representativeness of the population. . . . the scientists compared their sample data with the complete demographic data from the last general census of the population in the two cities. (Docbuzz, 2017)

Many studies of this type are based on snowball or volunteer samples which do not give the same strength to the results. (Vaysse, 2017)

Additionally, several articles described the French-American research team as “independent researchers.” Seven articles made reference to this, and an eighth article detailed one of the researcher’s prior experience with implementing this methodology.

This study, carried out by independent researchers and financed by . . . [ANSES], drew its conclusions from questionnaires answered by 816 people from the area of the Êtang de Berre. (Ceilles, 2017)

Three articles suggested that the rigor of the Fos EPSEAL study was drawn, in part, from the incorporation of residents throughout the research process. They suggested that by doing so, the CBPR approach likely reduced the potential for misclassification of measured variables:

Studies had already addressed the health issue in this area, but “no one answered precisely or completely the questions of the residents, from their context and their point of view . . .” The Fos EPSEAL study was careful to “take seriously the knowledge of the residents in regard to their own health.” From this emerged a set of symptoms and health conditions that are usually not documented, “either because they are not detectable or not detected by the existing health monitoring system, or because they are not considered serious enough to be well documented by those who are conducting the studies.” (Jobert, 2017)

This method allows us to obtain more relevant and rigorous results. It has been tried and institutionalized across the Atlantic – Yolaine Ferrier, member of Fos EPSEAL research team. (Descours, 2017)

Pre- and Postpress Event

We now present findings from a descriptive, stratified qualitative analysis highlighting how articles published prior to the press event on March 10, 2017 (N = 32) may have differed from those postpress event (N = 12). While we use proportions to facilitate these comparisons, we do not perform formal statistical analyses due to small sample size.

While articles published both pre- and postpress event emphasized the salience of the research topic to residents, prepress event publications did so using direct quotes from the Fos EPSEAL report while postpress event publications provided narratives summarizing residents’ concerns regarding prior research in the region and highlighting the health experiences of specific residents.

The Fos EPSEAL study aimed to document and describe in a systematic, representative, and participatory way the health of the inhabitants of two cities of the Gulf of Fos, in relation to their environment, in order to answer their initial questions concerning their state of health. (EPSEAL, 2017)

From her garden in Fos-sur-Mer (Bouches-du-Rhone), near Marseille, Sylvie Anane looked at huge oil vats and wonders about the role of pollution in her repeated illnesses. (Fos-sur-Mer, 2017)

A greater proportion of the postpress event publications (N = 8, 67% of postpress event publications) mentioned action steps compared with prepress event publications (N = 15, 47% of prepress event publications). Furthermore, the postpress event publications provided greater detail regarding what those action steps might entail:

In Fos, all the actors involved in this very sensitive issue are calling for increased health surveillance around Fos to take preventive measures. And for new standards for the industry: no one here is asking for the closure of the factories which employ 40,000 people. “We must emphasize innovation because . . . this issue questions our ways of producing and consuming.”—Philippe Chamaret, Director at L’Institut écocitoyen pour la connaissance des pollutions. (Tanguy, 2017)

A greater proportion of postpress event publications (N = 7; 58%) explicitly stated that a participatory approach had been implemented than did prepress event publications (N = 12 or 38%). Similarly, a greater proportion of postpress event publications described the participatory approach (N = 7; 58%) than did prepress event publications (N = 15; 44%). Of the postpress event articles that described the participatory approach, two went into notable detail (EPSEAL, 2017; Gilles, 2017). Finally, a greater proportion of postpress event publications (N = 3; 25%) quoted self-identified residents than did prepress event publications (N = 5; 16%).

Gaps in the Media Characterization of Participatory Research

In portraying the Fos EPSEAL study, the online media generally characterized participatory research in one of two ways: (1) community member participation in, and shaping of, the research process or (2) a representative sample of community members who responded to the survey tool. The latter, which is more akin to traditional, nonparticipatory research approaches, constitutes a more passive participation. This contrasts with CBPR’s active participation. More specifically, Cornwall and Jewkes (1995) differentiate participatory research from traditional, nonparticipatory research approaches by describing “a process of sequential reflection and action, carried out with and by local people rather than on them” (p. 1667). Thus, what distinguishes participatory research is not the methods used but rather its approach to the application of those methods: who generates, analyzes, represents, owns, and acts on the data, as well as whose knowledge and perceptions are privileged—therefore placing greater emphasis on process than more traditional, nonparticipatory approaches (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995). Put differently, community participation does not necessarily qualify a study as participatory; rather, participatory research must embed community members’ knowledge and agency throughout the research process (Buchanan et al., 2007). In the Fos EPSEAL study, local residents informed the problem definition, survey tool development, data generation, data interpretation, and data dissemination. Notably, while CBPR encourages opportunities for all research partners to engage in dissemination activities as well (Israel et al., 2018), few self-identified community members involved with the research were quoted in the prepress event media coverage, as compared with members of the research team, other scientific experts, and the mayor. Though descriptive in nature, our analysis suggests that this may have begun to shift postpress event. These findings suggest several opportunities for future study. First, in the present analysis, we were unable to explore whether quoted residents were only those who had been in attendance at the press event versus other independent sources sought by the online media. Second, we were not able to examine whether inclusion of interviews with residents in the online media coverage of the Fos EPSEAL study differed from that observed in the online media coverage of other, non-CBPR health studies broadly (Ponnou & Gonon, 2017; Zanchetta et al., 2018). Analyses of this nature may be of interest to other researchers implementing a CBPR approach in their work.

Evaluating Rigor in the Fos EPSEAL Study Findings

Our study found that the online media’s reporting on study rigor primarily focused on the extent to which inference could be drawn from the Fos EPSEAL study sample to the broader source population (i.e., the sample’s “representativeness”). Additionally, some publications highlighted the novelty of the participatory approach, assuaging anticipated concern by (1) noting the approach’s widespread use in the United States and (2) emphasizing the research team’s experience with its implementation. There were also several references to the French-American research team as “independent researchers,” suggesting a perceived objectivity in a matter of great local public interest and controversy. Interestingly, several articles seemed to anticipate and strive to preempt concerns over bias due to resident involvement by suggesting that the participatory approach instead serves to minimize the presence of bias. In the CBPR literature, researchers have made similar suggestions. For example, Balazs and Morello-Frosch posit that communities engaged in participatory science have augmented the rigor, relevance, and reach of science. They state that participatory research (via leveraging local knowledge and agency) (1) improves the practice of good science (i.e., appropriate study design and analysis in context), (2) ensures that science is asking the right research questions, and (3) strives for sustainability by collaborating with the local population to co-analyze data, disseminate findings to diverse audiences, and translate them into action (Balazs & Morello-Frosch, 2013). CBPR proponents would argue that the research question, which was rooted in residents’ concerns over their community’s health, ensured a locally relevant study. With regard to rigor, they may also argue that the Fos EPSEAL study’s successful recruitment of a representative sample of residents was facilitated, in part, by the commitment of community members to a research process in which they had ownership. Finally, that the online media, across a diversity of outlets, covered the Fos EPSEAL study and disseminated its findings may serve as preliminary evidence of the study’s reach.

Appraising the CBPR Approach

That several articles did not attempt to either communicate the participatory approach or appraise its rigor, but nonetheless published key findings from the Fos EPSEAL study, is noteworthy. Historically, the CBPR approach has elicited skepticism about study findings and rigor (Kinchy, 2010; Ottinger, 2010). As previously noted, some articles included in this analysis appeared to anticipate a skeptical appraisal of the Fos EPSEAL findings and sought to preempt concerns by suggesting that resident involvement serves to minimize the presence of bias. Rather than being presented as a limitation, the participatory approach was portrayed as a strength in these select pieces. However, most articles simply stated that a participatory approach was used and then focused primarily on the Fos EPSEAL findings. This may be an indication of a movement away from perceptions that use of a participatory approach in research is a limitation and toward a focus on the study findings that participatory research facilitates; further study to test this hypothesis is needed.

Implications for Research and Practice

We note several implications for future research. To the best of our knowledge, there have been no other analyses of the online media coverage of CBPR studies. In order to formally test the theories we invoke to frame our analysis, particularly given that studies of “the media occur at a point in time, and all studies are open to revision” (Ouellette& Gray, 2017, p. 3), we encourage future researchers to replicate this work for (1) CBPR health studies in other regions, (2) other nonparticipatory health studies in the same region, and (3) off-line media coverage to compare if and how it differs from online media coverage in its accuracy and reach. Furthermore, given that this analysis focused on how the online media reported on the CBPR approach, future research should also document the impact of this coverage across interested publics. Finally, we encourage researchers to explore if, among CBPR studies, the particular research methods employed matter. Fos EPSEAL was a quantitative epidemiology study informed by socio-anthropological work. Some have argued that “research stemming from interdisciplinary epistemic cultures is more likely to be medialized” (p. 498) particularly if it addresses “questions of human life and the human condition” (p. 498) and has immediate relevance in the public arena outside the confines of the scientific research community (Schäfer, 2009). Thus, the online media might engage differently with, for example, CBPR studies that do not use a multidisciplinary, quantitative approach (e.g., singular discipline, qualitative study).

We also offer several recommendations for the implementation of future CBPR studies. First, we note that the Fos EPSEAL research team placed an emphasis on dissemination. In addition to holding local focus groups to analyze the preliminary data, facilitating public meetings to report on the research findings, and distributing press releases summarizing key findings, they also hosted a press event to disseminate findings that featured members of the research team and local residents as speakers. This likely contributed to the study’s online media coverage and may have fostered the observed consistency in reporting across articles. We also note that an emphasis on the methods rather than the participatory approach in the online media coverage may signal a movement toward perceptions of using this approach as a strength in the research process. Alternatively, it may indicate that the online media may have reported on the study elements residents were most interested in discussing. We encourage future research to test these two hypotheses.