There is a need for better evidence on how to effectively support consumer partnerships in research (CPR). This paper aims to provide a practical checklist for market researchers to plan, implement, and report research where vulnerable consumers are the target population. A vulnerable consumer is someone who, due to their circumstances, may be disadvantaged or at risk in some marketplace situations. Here, it is proposed that research conducted about vulnerable consumers must include consumer co-researchers as partners in the research process. The involvement of consumers as co-researchers addresses this methodological gap to some extent by democratizing research design and empowering vulnerable consumers. The CPR Checklist is based on an integrative realistic review method, content validation via an expert panel, and includes consumer co-researcher involvement in the research process. Considering the complexities of vulnerable consumers and market research, the CPR Checklist provides a suite of 'how and why' questions to guide rigorous and ethical project conduct.
AndersonL.OstromA. L.CorusC.FiskR. P.GallanA. S.GiraldoM.MendeM.MulderM.RayburnS. W.RosenbaumM. S.ShirahadaK.,WilliamsJ. D. (2013). Transformative service research: An agenda for the future. Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1203–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.013
4.
AndreasenA. R.,ManningJ. (1990). The dissatisfaction and complaining behavior of vulnerable consumers. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 3(1), 12–20.
5.
AthertonH.BrantH.ZieblandS.BikkerA.CampbellJ.GibsonA.McKinstryB.PorquedduT.,SalisburyC. (2018). The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: A mixed-methods case study. Health Services and Delivery Research, 6(20), 1–235. https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr06200
6.
AytonD.BraafS.JonesA.TeedeH.GardamM.BergmeierH.,SkouterisH. (2021). Barriers and enablers to consumer and community involvement in research and healthcare improvement: Perspectives from consumer organisations, health services and researchers in Melbourne, Australia. Health & Social Care in the Community, 30(4), 1078–1091. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13515
7.
BakerS. M.GentryJ. W.,RittenburgT. L. (2005). Building understanding of the domain of consumer vulnerability. Journal of Macromarketing, 25(2), 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146705280622
8.
BallS.HarshfieldA.CarpenterA.BertscherA.,MarjanovicS. (2019). Patient and public involvement in research: Enabling meaningful contributions. RAND Corporation.
9.
BoatengG. O.NeilandsT. B.FrongilloE. A.Melgar-QuinonezH. R.,YoungS. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
10.
BoldtJ. (2019). The concept of vulnerability in medical ethics and philosophy. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 14(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-019-0075-6
11.
BrearM. (2019). Process and outcomes of a recursive, dialogic member checking approach: A project ethnography. Qualitative Health Research, 29(7), 944–957. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318812448
12.
BunnF.GoodmanC.RussellB.WilsonP.ManthorpeJ.RaitG.HodkinsonI.,DurandM. A. (2018). Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: A realist synthesis. BMC Geriatrics, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-018-0853-9
13.
CampbellS.GreenwoodM.PriorS.ShearerT.WalkemK.YoungS.BywatersD.,WalkerK. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research case examples. Journal of Research in Nursing, 25(8), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987120927206
14.
CarliniJ.BahudinD.MichaleffZ. A.PlunkettE.SheE. N.ClarkJ.,CardonaM. (2021). Discordance and concordance on perception of quality care at end of life between older patients, caregivers and clinicians: A scoping review. European Geriatric Medicine, 13(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-021-00549-6.1-13
15.
CarliniJ.GraceD.FranceC.,Lo IaconoJ. (2019). The corporate social responsibility (CSR) employer brand process: Integrative review and comprehensive model. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(1–2), 182–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2019.1569549
CarusiA. (2008). Data as representation: Beyond anonymity in e-research ethics. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 1(1), 37–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/174701610800400111
18.
CharltonJ. I. (1998). Nothing about us without us. Berkeley: University of California Press.
CowanH.KuhlbrandtC.,RiazuddinH. (2022). Reordering the machinery of participation with young people. Sociology of Health and Illness. Epub ahead of print 20220125https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13426
21.
DavisK. S.MohanM.,RayburnS. W. (2017). Service quality and acculturation: Advancing immigrant healthcare utilization. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(4–5), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-03-2016-0118
22.
De LeiuenC.,ArthureS. (2016). Collaboration on whose terms? Using the IAP2 community engagement model for archaeology in Kapunda, South Australia. Journal of Community Archaeology & Heritage, 3(2), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/20518196.2016.1154735
DietrichT.TrischlerJ.SchusterL.,Rundle-ThieleS. (2017). Co-designing services with vulnerable consumers. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 27(3), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1108/jstp-02-2016-0036
25.
Dixon-WoodsM.CaversD.AgarwalS.AnnandaleE.ArthurA.HarveyJ.HsuR.KatbamnaS.OlsenR.SmithL.RileyR.,SuttonA. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-35
26.
DowneyH.HamiltonK.,CatterallM. (2007). Researching vulnerability: What about the researcher?European Journal of Marketing, 41(7/8), 734–739. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710752375
27.
DriedgerD. (1989). The last civil rights movement: Disabled Peoples' International. Hurst & Company.
28.
EarlA. (2004). Lay involvement in health care and other research. Radcliffe Medical Press.
29.
EdelmanN.,BarronD. (2016). Evaluation of public involvement in research: Time for a major re-think?Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 21(3), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819615612510
30.
EgharevbaI. (2001). Researching an-'other'minority ethnic community: Reflections of a black female researcher on the intersections of race, gender and other power positions on the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570010023760
31.
EllingsonL. L. (2017). Embodiment in qualitative research. Routledge.
32.
EsmailL.MooreE.,ReinA. (2015). Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: Moving from theory to practice. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 4(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer.14.79
33.
Fletcher-BrownJ.TurnbullS.VigliaG.ChenT.,PereiraV. (2021). Vulnerable consumer engagement: How corporate social media can facilitate the replenishment of depleted resources. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(2), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.06.002
GoedhartN.PittensC.TončinićS.Zuiderent-JerakT.DeddingC.,BroerseJ. E. W. (2021). Engaging citizens living in vulnerable circumstances in research: A narrative review using a systematic search. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00306-w
36.
GoopyS.,KassanA. (2019). Arts-based engagement ethnography: An approach for making research engaging and knowledge transferable when working with harder-to-reach communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406918820424. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918820424
37.
GrantA.,KaraH. (2021). Considering the autistic advantage in qualitative research: The strengths of autistic researchers. Contemporary Social Science, 16(5), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2021.1998589
38.
GreenhalghT.HintonL.FinlayT.MacfarlaneA.FahyN.ClydeB.,ChantA. (2019). Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: Systematic review and co‐design pilot. Health Expectations, 22(4), 785–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888
39.
GunatillakeT.ShadboltC.GouldD.LamM.HearstM. G.VleeskensC.ChoongP.,DowseyM. (2020). Embedding consumer and community involvement within an established research centre: Moving from general recommendations to an actionable framework. Research Involvement and Engagement, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00241-2
40.
GurrieriL.PreviteJ.,Brace-GovanJ. (2013). Women’s bodies as sites of control: Inadvertent stigma and exclusion in social marketing. Journal of Macromarketing, 33(2), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146712469971
41.
HelmsJ.HenzeK.MascherJ., et al. (2005). Ethical issues when White researchers study ALANA and immigrant people and communities. In J TrimbleCF (Ed.), Handbook of ethical research with ethno-cultural populations and communities (pp. 299–324). London: Sage.
42.
HepiM.FooteJ.FinsterwalderJ.Moana-o-HinerangiM. o. H.CarswellS.,BakerV. (2017). An integrative transformative service framework to improve engagement in a social service ecosystem: The case of He Waka Tapu. Journal of Services Marketing, 31(4), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-06-2016-0222
43.
HillR. P.CapellaM. L.RappJ. M.,GentlemenG. (2016). Antiservice as guiding maxim: Tough lessons from a maximum security prison. Journal of Service Research, 19(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670515593914
HoddinottP.PollockA.O'CathainA.BoyerI.TaylorJ.MacDonaldC.OliverS.,DonovanJ. L. (2018). How to incorporate patient and public perspectives into the design and conduct of research. F1000Research, 7(5), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15162.1
46.
HövermannA.GroßE. M.ZickA.MessnerS. F. (2015). Understanding the devaluation of vulnerable groups: A novel application of institutional anomie theory. Social Science Research, 52, 408-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.03.001.
47.
HugmanR.PittawayE.,BartolomeiL. (2011). When ‘do no harm’is not enough: The ethics of research with refugees and other vulnerable groups. The British Journal of Social Work, 41(7), 1271–1287. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcr013
48.
HyrkäsK.Appelqvist-SchmidlechnerK.,OksaL. (2003). Validating an instrument for clinical supervision using an expert panel. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 40(6), 619–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7489(03)00036-1
49.
IAP2. (2022). International association for public participation. https://iap2.org.au/.(Accessed 10 June).
JohnsR.,DaveyJ. (2019). Introducing the transformative service mediator: Value creation with vulnerable consumers. Journal of Services Marketing, 33(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsm-10-2018-0282
KubackiK.SiemieniakoD.,BrennanL. (2020). Building positive resilience through vulnerability analysis. Journal of Social Marketing, 10(4), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsocm-09-2019-0142
54.
KunzT.LandesvatterC.,GummerT. (2020). Informed consent for paradata use in web surveys. International Journal of Market Research, 62(4), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320931669
MachinJ. E.BristerT.BossarteR. M.DrentenJ.HillR. P.HollandD. L.MartikM.MulderM.MartikM.ViswanathanM.YehM. A.MirabitoA. M.Rapp FarrellJ.CrosbyE.,Ross AdkinsN. (2022). Conversations about conducting marketing research in mental health. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 39(6), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-02-2022-5212
58.
MaddenM.SpeedE. (2017). Beware zombies and unicorns: Toward critical patient and public involvement in health research in a neoliberal context. Frontiers in Sociology, 2, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2017.00007.
59.
ManafòE.PetermannL.Vandall-WalkerV.,Mason-LaiP. (2018). Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature. Plos One, 13(3), e0193579. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193579
60.
MansfieldP. M.,PintoM. B. (2008). Consumer vulnerability and credit card knowledge among developmentally disabled citizens. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(3), 425–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2008.00115.x
61.
MehmetM.RobertsR.,NayeemT. (2020). Using digital and social media for health promotion: A social marketing approach for addressing co‐morbid physical and mental health. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 28(2), 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12589
62.
MetinyurtT.Haynes-BaratzM. C.BondM. A. (2021). A systematic review of interventions to address workplace bias: What we know, what we don’t, and lessons learned. New Ideas in Psychology, 63, 100879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2021.100879.
63.
MilliganE.WestR.SaundersV.BialocerkowskiA.CreedyD.Rowe MinnissF.HallK.,VervoortS. (2021). Achieving cultural safety for Australia's first peoples: A review of the Australian health practitioner regulation agency-registered health practitioners' codes of conduct and codes of ethics. Australian Health Review: a Publication of the Australian Hospital Association, 45(4), 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1071/ah20215
64.
MortensenC. H. (2005). (Eco) mimesis and the ethics of the ethnographic presentation. Journal of American Folklore, 118(467), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1353/jaf.2005.0007
65.
MuirR.CarliniJ. J.HarbeckE. L.GillespieB. M.TuffahaH. W.WalkerR. M.McInnesE. C.LatimerS. L.LinF. F.PearcyJ. M.,ChaboyerW. P. (2020). Patient involvement in surgical wound care research: A scoping review. International Wound Journal, 17(5), 1462–1482. https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13395
66.
MustanskiB. (2011). Ethical and regulatory issues with conducting sexuality research with LGBT adolescents: A call to action for a scientifically informed approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(4), 673–686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9745-1
NolenA. L.,PuttenJ. V. (2007). Action research in education: Addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 401–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07309629
70.
NoyesJ.BoothA.CargoM., et al. (2019). Extracting qualitative evidence. In Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 525–545). Wiley.
71.
OclooJ.GarfieldS.FranklinB. D.,DawsonS. (2021). Exploring the theory, barriers and enablers for patient and public involvement across health, social care and patient safety: A systematic review of reviews. Health Research Policy and Systems, 19(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00644-3
72.
OngF.Vorobjovas-PintaO.,LewisC. (2020). LGBTIQ+ identities in tourism and leisure research: A systematic qualitative literature review. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 30(7), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1828430
73.
OwenR. (2021). Using mindfulness to promote transformative learning in implicit racial bias training. Adult Learning, 32(3), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159520981165
74.
PalinkasL. A.HorwitzS. M.GreenC. A.WisdomJ. P.DuanN.,HoagwoodK. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
75.
PawsonR.GreenhalghT.HarveyG.,WalsheK. (2005). Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10(1_suppl), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1258/1355819054308530
76.
PayneB. K.VuletichH. A.,LundbergK. B. (2017). The bias of crowds: How implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840x.2017.1335568
77.
PickeringL.,KaraH. (2017). Presenting and representing others: Towards an ethics of engagement. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(3), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1287875
78.
PolsJ. (2015). Towards an empirical ethics in care: Relations with technologies in health care. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 18(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-014-9582-9
79.
PompperD. (2010). Researcher-researched difference: Adapting an autoethnographic approach for addressing the racial matching issue. Journal of Research Practice, 6(1), M6.
80.
PopayJ.,CollinsM. (2014). PiiAF the public involvement impact assessment framework guidance. http://piiaf.org.uk/index.php (Accessed 10 September).
81.
PrattoF. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 191–263). Elsevier.
82.
QuintonS.,ReynoldsN. (2017). The changing roles of researchers and participants in digital and social media research: Ethics challenges and forward directions. In The ethics of online research. Emerald Publishing Limited.
83.
RadtkeJ. M. (1998). How to write a mission statement. The Grantsmanship Center Magazine, 68(1), 1–3.
84.
ReddelT.,WoolcockG. (2004). From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(3), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2004.00392.x
RussellJ.FudgeN.,GreenhalghT. (2020). The impact of public involvement in health research: What are we measuring? Why are we measuring it? Should we stop measuring it?Res Involv Engagem, 6(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00239-w
87.
Rutherford-HemmingT. (2015). Determining content validity and reporting a content validity index for simulation scenarios. Nursing Education Perspectives, 36(6), 389–393. https://doi.org/10.5480/15-1640
88.
SchmidtkeD.Rundle-ThieleS.KubackiK.,BurnsG. L. (2021). Co-designing social marketing programs with “bottom of the pyramid” citizens. International Journal of Market Research, 63(1), 86–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785320968029
89.
ShiH. Y.JingF. J.YangY.,NguyenB. (2017). The concept of consumer vulnerability: Scale development and validation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(6), 769–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12390
90.
SmithL. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books Ltd.
91.
SmithR.MonaghanM.,BroadB. (2002). Involving young people as co-researchers: Facing up to the methodological issues. Qualitative Social Work, 1(2), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001002619
92.
SpotswoodF.,NairnA. (2016). Children as vulnerable consumers: A first conceptualisation. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(3–4), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257x.2015.1107616
93.
StaniszewskaS.BrettJ.MockfordC.,BarberR. (2011). The GRIPP checklist: Strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 27(4), 391–399. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462311000481
94.
StaniszewskaS.BrettJ.SimeraI.SeersK.MockfordC.GoodladS.AltmanD. G.MoherD.BarberR.DenegriS.EntwistleA.LittlejohnsP.MorrisC.SulemanR.ThomasV.TysallC. (2017). GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ, 358, j3453.
95.
ThompsonA.StringfellowL.MacleanM.NazzalA. (2021). Ethical considerations and challenges for using digital ethnography to research vulnerable populations. Journal of Business Research, 124, 676-683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.02.025.
96.
TorracoR. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
97.
TurnerS. V.BerntP. W.,BerntJ. P. (2003). Involving middle school students as co-researchers of their media environment. American Educational Research Association.
98.
VatL. E.RyanD.,EtchegaryH. (2017). Recruiting patients as partners in health research: A qualitative descriptive study. Research Involvement and Engagement, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0067-x
99.
VillanuevaK.WoolcockG.GoldfeldS.TantonR.BrinkmanS.KatzI.Giles-CortiB. (2022). The built environment and early childhood development: Qualitative evidence from disadvantaged Australian communities. Children’s Geographies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2022.2059651.1-17.
100.
WillmottT. J.MathewA.LuckE.Rundle-ThieleS.CarinsJ.VinczeL.WilliamsL.,BallL. (2022a). Participatory design application in obesity prevention targeting young adults and adolescents: A mixed-methods systematic scoping review protocol. Systematic Reviews, 11(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01900-z
101.
WillmottT. J.MathewA.SalemeP.,Rundle-ThieleS. (2022b). Participatory design application in youth sexual violence and abuse prevention: A mixed-methods systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Epub ahead of print 20220316https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221078891
ZamanzadehV.GhahramanianA.RassouliM.AbbaszadehA.Alavi-MajdH.,NikanfarA. R. (2015). Design and implementation content validity study: Development of an instrument for measuring patient-centered communication. Journal of Caring Sciences, 4(2), 165. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2015.017
104.
ZieblandS.,WykeS. (2012). Health and illness in a connected world: How might sharing experiences on the internet affect people's health?The Milbank Quarterly, 90(2), 219–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00662.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
