This article examines the overall experiences of community researchers in their involvement with the ‘PROMPT’ project for smoking cessation, which targeted community members who were homeless or at-risk for homelessness. More specifically, four community members, representing the study population were involved in the project as researchers. They were asked to complete surveys at both the beginning and end of each research training session to better understand their learning as it related to using a key instrument for this project, a spirometer, to measure project participants’ lung function. Spirometry is typically performed by trained healthcare providers. Community researchers were also interviewed to explore what their experiences were like working as a researcher with their own at-risk community. Although the researchers felt that the training was sufficient, more research is needed to evaluate training effectiveness among community researchers in delivering acceptable quality lung function testing using a spirometer. Upon analyzing the small group discussion and survey results, we found that the community researchers had an overall positive experience with both the project, and the training that was provided to equip them with the knowledge, tools, and resources they needed to successfully work in a research project of this kind. They also faced challenges that are common in such community-based projects, such as the power differential between the researchers with a healthcare background and themselves who have lived experience with the issue at hand. Background The Ottawa Citizen Engagement and Action Model (OCEAM) used a Community Based Participatory Action Research (CBPAR) approach by involving the most at-risk urban population. Community (peer) researchers participated in every step of the study despite the multiple challenges. Objective To assess the community researchers’ training and experiences in a CBPAR project, PROMPT: Participatory Research in Ottawa: Management and Point-of-care for Tobacco Dependence. Method Four community researchers were recruited, representative of the PROMPT project’s target population with current or past poly-substance use; smoking tobacco; and/or being homeless or at-risk for homelessness. The community researchers participated in all phases of PROMPT, including study design, development of questionnaires, participant recruitment, administering consent forms and questionnaires, as well as hand-held spirometry after rigorous training. To assess their knowledge and comfort level with spirometry testing after standardized training, questionnaires were administered pre- and post-training. In turn, to assess their overall experience, interviews were conducted at the end of study completion. Results All community researchers underwent small-group training sessions including presentations, discussions and hands-on practice adapted from standardized training material prepared for health care professionals. Spirometry training was included in all sessions. Self-perceived knowledge and confidence in administering spirometry, as well as skill-testing score averages improved between the pre- and post-training questionnaires. Overall, all the community researchers had a fulfilling experience participating in the project. Conclusion Despite challenges, involving community researchers with lived experience is feasible, satisfying and productive even in the most marginalized populations. Standardized spirometry training of community researchers’ representative of the PROMPT target population, with no healthcare educational background, was feasible and effective in improving knowledge, confidence and readiness to administer spirometry.

中文翻译：

---

评估社区（同行）研究人员进行肺活量测定并参与“渥太华参与性研究：烟草依赖管理和护理点”（PROMPT）项目的经验

本文考察了社区研究人员参与“PROMPT”戒烟项目的总体经验，该项目针对无家可归或面临无家可归风险的社区成员。更具体地说，代表研究人群的四名社区成员作为研究人员参与了该项目。他们被要求在每次研究培训课程的开始和结束时完成调查，以更好地了解他们的学习情况，因为这与使用该项目的关键仪器——肺活量计来测量项目参与者的肺功能有关。肺活量测定通常由训练有素的医疗保健提供者进行。还采访了社区研究人员，以探索他们作为研究人员在自己的高危社区工作的经历。尽管研究人员认为培训已经足够，但需要更多的研究来评估社区研究人员在使用肺量计提供可接受的质量肺功能测试方面的培训效果。在分析小组讨论和调查结果后，我们发现社区研究人员对项目以及为使他们获得成功工作所需的知识、工具和资源而提供的培训都获得了总体积极的体验。此类研究项目。他们还面临着此类基于社区的项目中常见的挑战，例如具有医疗保健背景的研究人员与对手头问题有实际经验的研究人员之间的权力差异。背景 渥太华公民参与和行动模型 (OCEAM) 采用基于社区的参与式行动研究 (CBPAR) 方法，涉及风险最大的城市人口。尽管面临多重挑战，社区（同行）研究人员仍参与了研究的每一步。目的 评估社区研究人员在 CBPAR 项目中的培训和经验，PROMPT：渥太华的参与式研究：烟草依赖的管理和护理点。方法 招募了四名社区研究人员，他们代表了当前或过去使用多物质的 PROMPT 项目的目标人群；吸烟；和/或无家可归或面临无家可归的风险。社区研究人员参与了 PROMPT 的所有阶段，包括研究设计、问卷开发、参与者招募、管理同意书和问卷，以及经过严格培训后的手持式肺活量测定。为了在标准化培训后通过肺活量测试评估他们的知识和舒适度，在培训前和培训后进行了问卷调查。反过来，为了评估他们的整体经验，在研究结束时进行了采访。结果 所有社区研究人员都接受了小组培训课程，包括演示、讨论和动手实践，这些课程改编自为医疗保健专业人员准备的标准化培训材料。肺活量训练包括在所有课程中。在培训前和培训后问卷调查中，自我感知的知识和对肺活量测定的信心以及技能测试平均得分都有所提高。总体而言，所有社区研究人员在参与该项目时都有充实的经历。结论 尽管存在挑战，但即使在最边缘化的人群中，让具有生活经验的社区研究人员参与也是可行的、令人满意的和富有成效的。对没有医疗保健教育背景的社区研究人员代表 PROMPT 目标人群的标准化肺量测定培训在提高知识、信心和准备进行肺量测定方面是可行和有效的。所有社区研究人员在参与该项目时都有过充实的经历。结论 尽管存在挑战，但即使在最边缘化的人群中，让具有生活经验的社区研究人员参与也是可行的、令人满意的和富有成效的。对没有医疗保健教育背景的社区研究人员代表 PROMPT 目标人群的标准化肺量测定培训在提高知识、信心和准备进行肺量测定方面是可行和有效的。所有社区研究人员在参与该项目时都有过充实的经历。结论 尽管存在挑战，但即使在最边缘化的人群中，让具有生活经验的社区研究人员参与也是可行的、令人满意的和富有成效的。对没有医疗保健教育背景的社区研究人员代表 PROMPT 目标人群的标准化肺量测定培训在提高知识、信心和准备进行肺量测定方面是可行和有效的。