Tailoring Content for Authenticity and Adoption: Community-Based Participatory Research and the Co-creation of Story-Based Health Communication for Underserved Communities

Background. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is increasingly used by community and academic partners to examine health inequities and promote health equity in communities. Despite increasing numbers of CBPR partnerships, there is a lack of consensus in the field regarding what defines partnership success and how to measure factors contributing to success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Aims. To identify indicators and measures of success in long-standing CBPR partnerships as part of a larger study whose aim is to develop and validate an instrument measuring success across CBPR partnerships. Methods. The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided searches of three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) for articles published between 2007 and 2017 and evaluating success in CBPR partnerships existing longer than 4 years. Results. Twenty-six articles met search criteria. We identified 3 key domains and 7 subdomains with 28 underlying indicators of success. Six partnerships developed or used instruments to measure their success; only one included reliability or validity data. Discussion. CBPR partnerships reported numerous intersecting partner, partnership, and outcome indicators important for success. These results, along with data from key informant interviews with community and academic partners and advisement from a national panel of CBPR experts, will inform development of items for an instrument measuring CBPR partnership success. Conclusion. The development of a validated instrument measuring indicators of success will allow long-standing CBPR partnerships to evaluate their work toward achieving health equity and provide a tool for newly forming CBPR partnerships aiming to achieve long-term success.

This article explores science communication from the perspective of those most at risk of exclusion, drawing on ethnographic fieldwork. I conducted five focus groups and 32 interviews with participants from low-income, minority ethnic backgrounds. Using theories of social reproduction and social justice, I argue that participation in science communication is marked by structural inequalities (particularly ethnicity and class) in two ways. First, participants’ involvement in science communication practices was narrow (limited to science media consumption). Second, their experiences of exclusion centred on cultural imperialism (misrepresentation and ‘Othering’) and powerlessness (being unable to participate or change the terms of their participation). I argue that social reproduction in science communication constructs a narrow public that reflects the shape, values and practices of dominant groups, at the expense of the marginalised. The article contributes to how we might reimagine science communication’s publics by taking inclusion/exclusion and the effects of structural inequalities into account.

The researcher seeking guidance in conducting research that is truly community-participatory may fınd too much guidance rather than too little and must recognize that his or her project will be evaluated not only on the quality of the science, but on the extent to which it adheres to the principles of CBPR.