23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Engage for Equity: Development of Community-Based Participatory Research Tools

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We developed a set of four community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership tools aimed at supporting community–academic research partnerships in strengthening their research processes, with the ultimate goal of improving research outcomes. The aim of this article is to describe the tools we developed to accomplish this goal: (1) the River of Life Exercise; (2) a Partnership Visioning Exercise; (3) a personalized Partnership Data Report of data from academic and community research partners; and (4) a Promising Practices Guide with aggregated survey data analyses on promising CBPR practices associated with CBPR and health outcomes from two national samples of CBPR projects that completed a series of two online surveys. Relying on Paulo Freire’s philosophy of praxis, or the cycles of collective reflection and action, we developed a set of tools designed to support research teams in holding discussions aimed at strengthening research partnership capacity, aligning research partnership efforts to achieve grant aims, and recalling and operationalizing larger social justice goals. This article describes the theoretical framework and process for tool development and provides preliminary data from small teams representing 25 partnerships who attended face-to-face workshops and provided their perceptions of tool accessibility and intended future use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health

          Fifteen to twenty years is how long it takes for the billions of dollars of health-related research to translate into evidence-based policies and programs suitable for public use. Over the past 15 years, an exciting science has emerged that seeks to narrow the gap between the discovery of new knowledge and its application in public health, mental health, and health care settings. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) research seeks to understand how to best apply scientific advances in the real world, by focusing on pushing the evidence-based knowledge base out into routine use. To help propel this crucial field forward, leading D&I scholars and researchers have collaborated to put together this volume to address a number of key issues, including: how to evaluate the evidence base on effective interventions; which strategies will produce the greatest impact; how to design an appropriate study; and how to track a set of essential outcomes. D&I studies must also take into account the barriers to uptake of evidence-based interventions in the communities where people live their lives and the social service agencies, hospitals, and clinics where they receive care. The challenges of moving research to practice and policy are universal, and future progress calls for collaborative partnerships and cross-country research. The fundamental tenet of D&I research—taking what we know about improving health and putting it into practice—must be the highest priority. This book is nothing less than a roadmap that will have broad appeal to researchers and practitioners across many disciplines.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Engage for Equity: The Role of Trust and Synergy in Community-Based Participatory Research

            Community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships exist as complex, dynamic relationships that incorporate shared decision that supports trust development between communities and academics. Within CBPR, the interest in understanding the concept of trust has grown with the realization that, without trust, CBPR relationships fracture. A barrier to monitoring the trust health of a partnership is the lack of a shared operationalization of the concept, its antecedents, and measurement tools. To address these barriers, a six-category trust typology was created as a developmental theory of trust progress. To advance the theory, this article reports on the quantitative structural elements of the trust typology, identifies variability in trust correlates, and creates an empirical foundation for the trust types. Using Engage for Equity data, trust covariates included measures of synergy, CBPR principles, participation, and influence. Structural equation models were used to assess associations between trust types and the latent constructs measured by the items in each measure. The findings demonstrate that the six trust types generally operate on a continuum. Specifically, it does appear that trust deficit, role-based trust, functional trust, proxy trust, and reflective trust are on a single continuum from low to high. Scale scores for reflective trust and proxy trust were consistently and statistically significantly higher than those for functional trust, role-based, neutral, and trust deficit. These results support the construct validity of the trust typology as representing “higher levels” of trust phases. Due to the dynamic nature of partnerships, regular monitoring of partnership trust types can serve as a proxy for partnership functioning.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Journal
              Health Education & Behavior
              Health Educ Behav
              SAGE Publications
              1090-1981
              1552-6127
              June 2020
              May 21 2020
              June 2020
              : 47
              : 3
              : 359-371
              Affiliations
              [1 ]University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
              [2 ]University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
              [3 ]RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA
              Article
              10.1177/1090198120921188
              32437292
              098059fc-5ba6-4960-aec9-b29c85e49d1e
              © 2020

              http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

              History

              Comments

              Comment on this article