Characteristics and Practices Within Research Partnerships for Health and Social Equity

Advancing genomics to improve health equity

Health equity is the state in which everyone has fair and just opportunities to attain their highest level of health. The field of human genomics has fallen short in increasing health equity, largely because the diversity of the human population has been inadequately reflected among participants of genomics research. This lack of diversity leads to disparities that can have scientific and clinical consequences. Achieving health equity related to genomics will require greater effort in addressing inequities within the field. As part of the commitment of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) to advancing health equity, it convened experts in genomics and health equity research to make recommendations and performed a review of current literature to identify the landscape of gaps and opportunities at the interface between human genomics and health equity research. This Perspective describes these findings and examines health equity within the context of human genomics and genomic medicine.

Community Partnership to Co-Develop an Intervention to Promote Equitable Uptake of the COVID-19 Vaccine Among Pediatric Populations

Objective

To describe the process of engaging community, caregiver, and youth partners in codeveloping an intervention to promote equitable uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in non-Hispanic Black (Black) and Hispanic youth who experience higher rates of COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality but were less likely to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

Methods

A team of 11 Black and Hispanic community partners was assembled to codevelop intervention strategies with our interdisciplinary research team. We used a mixed-methods crowdsourcing approach with Black and Hispanic youth (n=15) and caregivers of Black and Hispanic youth (n=20) who had not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19, recruited from primary care clinics, to elicit perspectives on the acceptability of these intervention strategies.

Results

We codeveloped five strategies: (1) community-tailored handouts and posters, (2) videos featuring local youth, (3) family-centered language to offer vaccines in the primary care clinic, (4) communication-skills training for primary care providers, and (5) use of community health workers to counsel families about the vaccine. The majority (56-96.9%) of youth and caregivers rated each of these strategies as acceptable, especially because they addressed common concerns and facilitated shared decision-making.

Conclusions

Engaging community and family partners led to the co-development of culturally- and locally-tailored strategies to promote dialogue and shared decision-making about the COVID-19 vaccine. This process can be used to codevelop interventions to address other forms of public health disparities.

Policy Implications

Intervention strategies that promote dialogues with trusted healthcare providers and support shared decision-making are acceptable strategies to promote COVID-19 vaccine uptake among youth from historically underserved communities. Stakeholder-engaged methods may also help in the development of interventions to address other forms of health disparities.

A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts

BACKGROUND

Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study.

OBJECTIVE

To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research.

CONCLUSION

This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs.

Development and Validation of a Measure to Assess Readiness to Advance Health and Equity: The Assessment for Advancing Community Transformation (AACT)

Multi-sector partnerships are core in efforts to improve population health but are often not as fully developed or positioned to advance health and equity in their communities as believed to be. Therefore, measuring the collaborations multi-sector partnerships undertake is important to document the inputs, processes, and outcomes that evolve as they work together towards achieving their goals, which ultimately creates a greater sense of shared accountability. In this study we present the development and validation of the Assessment for Advancing Community Transformation (AACT), a new tool designed to measure readiness to advance health and health equity. Development of the AACT included initial item pool creation, external evaluation from five subject matter experts, and pilot testing (including user feedback surveys) among 103 individuals. Validation of the AACT was performed using a series of confirmatory factor analyses on an expanded dataset representing 352 individuals from 49 multi-sector collaboratives across the United States. The results of our study indicate the items in the AACT align to six domains created during the scale development process, and that the tool demonstrates desirable measurement characteristics for use in research, evaluation, and practice.

The Role of Teachers in Addressing Childhood Obesity: A School-Based Approach

Childhood obesity is one of the most prevalent public health challenges in the United States, and although rates are declining overall, rates among children living in underserved neighborhoods are increasing. This five-year intervention project seeks to empower teachers (n = 92) to invest in their own health and then integrate nutrition concepts into core subjects' lessons in elementary schools. The professional development sessions reflect the concepts in the Whole Child, Whole School, Whole Community model. Results indicate that teachers who attended professional development sessions were more likely to implement nutrition lessons in the classroom (r = 0.54, p < 0.01), and students demonstrated a significant increase in nutrition knowledge (p < 0.001, df = 2, F = 9.66). Investing in school-based programs that ensure teacher well-being and professional development can yield positive benefits for both teachers and students.

Characterizing Canadian funded partnered health research projects between 2011 and 2019: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Involving research users in collaborative research approaches may increase the relevance and utility of research findings. Our primary objectives were to (i) identify and describe characteristics of Canadian federally and provincially funded health research projects that included research users and were funded between 2011 and 2019; (ii) explore changes over time; and (iii) compare characteristics between funder required and optional partnerships.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis. Inclusion criteria were projects that included research users. We analyzed publicly available project variables, and coded field and type of research using established classification systems. We summarized data with descriptive statistics and compared variables across three funding year blocks and partnership requirement status.

RESULTS

We identified 1153 partnered health research projects, representing 137 fields of research and 37 types of research categories. Most projects included a required partnership (80%) and fell into health and social care services research (66%). Project length and funding amount increased from average of 24.8 months and $266 248 CAD in 2011-2013 to 31.6 months and $438 766 CAD in 2017-2019. There were significantly fewer required partnerships in 2017-2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2011 and 2019 Canadian federally and provincially funded partnered health research reflected primarily care services research across many fields. The observed breadth suggests that partnered health research approaches are applicable in many fields of research. Additional work to support partnered research across all types of health research (especially biomedical research) is warranted. The administration of larger grants that are funded for longer time periods may address previously identified concerns among research teams engaging in partnered research but may mean that fewer teams receive funding and risk delaying responding to time-sensitive data needs for users. Our process and findings can be used as a starting point for international comparison.

Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.

RESULTS

From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.

How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks

Background

Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature.

Objective

To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics.

Methods

Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction–validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD).

Results

Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%).

Conclusion

This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field.

Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932.

Exploring theoretical mechanisms of community-engaged research: a multilevel cross-sectional national study of structural and relational practices in community-academic partnerships

Background

Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is often used to address health inequities due to structural racism. However, much of the existing literature emphasizes relationships and synergy rather than structural components of CBPR. This study introduces and tests new theoretical mechanisms of the CBPR Conceptual Model to address this limitation.

Methods

Three-stage online cross-sectional survey administered from 2016 to 2018 with 165 community-engaged research projects identified through federal databases or training grants. Participants (N = 453) were principal investigators and project team members (both academic and community partners) who provided project-level details and perceived contexts, processes, and outcomes. Data were analyzed through structural equation modeling and fuzzy-set qualitative comparison analysis.

Results

Commitment to Collective Empowerment was a key mediating variable between context and intervention activities. Synergy and Community Engagement in Research Actions were mediating variables between context/partnership process and outcomes. Collective Empowerment was most strongly aligned with Synergy, while higher levels of Structural Governance and lower levels of Relationships were most consistent with higher Community Engagement in Research Actions.

Conclusions

The CBPR Conceptual Model identifies key theoretical mechanisms for explaining health equity and health outcomes in community-academic partnerships. The scholarly literature’s preoccupation with synergy and relationships overlooks two promising practices—Structural Governance and Collective Empowerment—that interact from contexts through mechanisms to influence outcomes. These results also expand expectations beyond a “one size fits all” for reliably producing positive outcomes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12939-022-01663-y.

Engage for Equity: Advancing the Fields of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-engaged Research in Community Psychology and the Social Sciences

Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR), as the most cited Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) approach in the health fields, mirrors community-psychology's long-term interest in participatory action research and community empowerment. This article introduces the Engage for Equity study, a long-term National Institutes of Health-funded inquiry to identify best partnering and collaborative practices that contribute to community capacity, empowerment and policy outcomes, and to long-term improved health and health equity. Four articles present facets of the study: psychometrics of partnering process and outcome measures, measures and outcomes of shared governance, and description of the CBPR Model as a new equity- and partnership based implementation framework; and as a tool for organizational learning and quality improvement. Finally a review of CBPR and CEnR in psychology offers recommendations for the field. Though focusing on CBPR and CEnR, Engage for Equity offers lessons for all forms of participatory action research.

Scales of Practices and Outcomes for Community-Engaged Research

Despite the growth of research on community-engaged research (CEnR), recent reviews suggest there has been limited development of validated scales to measure key contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes, impairing testing and refinement of theoretical models. The purpose of this study is to present the psychometric properties of scales from the Engage for Equity (E2) project, stemming from a long-term research partnership examining community-engaged research projects. This study used a three-stage, cross-sectional format: (a) a sampling frame of 413 CEnR projects was identified; (b) 210 principal investigators completed a project-level survey and nominated partners for another survey; (c) 457 investigators and partners completed a survey about project contexts, processes, interventions, and outcomes. Factorial validity was established through confirmatory factor analysis supporting seven scales: contextual capacity, commitment to collective empowerment, relationships, community engagement in research actions, synergy, partner and partnership transformation, and projected outcomes. Convergent validity was established through examining covariances among the scales. This study largely yielded results consistent with a previous psychometric study of related measures, while demonstrating improved ceiling effects of the items and refined conceptualization of core theoretical constructs.

Community partnerships in emerging immigrant communities: Lessons learned addressing Latino childhood weight disparities

Latino children have disproportionately high childhood obesity rates, and U.S.-born Latino children of immigrant parents experience higher overweight/obesity rates than other Latino children. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) to engage Latino immigrant families and Latino-serving community organizations is one mechanism to address the lack of effective and practical interventions addressing childhood obesity disparities among Latino children. We present lessons learned from applying CBPR methods to a partnership focused on developing a child obesity treatment program for Latino immigrant families in an emerging Latino immigrant destination to inform the use of CBPR methods in other partnerships in emerging immigrant communities. We encountered challenges working within the partnership related to entrenched sociopolitical hierarchies that were not inclusive of immigrant community leaders, capacity building for partners with limited literacy and administrative experience, and how best to use complementary methods and frameworks to support a community-engaged research process. This work is one way to promote shared learning among the community of researchers using CBPR and other engagement methods to partner with emerging immigrant communities. Together with our community partners, we can identify strategies to more effectively partner to promote health equity and work toward social justice for all members of our communities.

A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships

Understanding what contributes to success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships is essential to ensuring their effectiveness in addressing health disparities and health inequities. Synergy, the concept of accomplishing more together than separately, is central to partnership effectiveness. However, synergy specific to long-standing, equity-focused CBPR partnerships has not been closely examined. To address this, we defined and developed measures of partnership synergy as one dimension of a participatory mixed methods study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), to develop a validated instrument to measure success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Framed by a conceptual model and scoping literature review, we conducted in-depth interviews with a national panel of academic and community experts in CBPR and equity to develop partnership synergy measures. Items were refined through an iterative process, including a three-stage Delphi process, comparison with existing measures, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. Seven questionnaire items were developed to measure synergy arising from equitable partnerships bringing together diverse partners across power differences to promote equity. Defining and measuring synergy in the context of long-standing partnership success is central to understanding the role of synergy in collaborative approaches to research and action and can strengthen CBPR partnerships to promote healthy communities and advance health equity.

Using developmental evaluation and community-based participatory research to develop a model of supportive housing

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and developmental evaluation (DE) have emerged over recent decades as separate approaches for addressing complex social issues. Current literature offers little with respect to the use of CBPR and DE in combination, although the two approaches are complementary. Through the current paper, we outline how CBPR and DE were used to develop a model of supportive housing for teen families. More specifically, we describe the structures and processes that contributed to this development, including (1) our partnership approach, (2) pooled resources, (3) regular opportunities for collaboration and reflection, (4) integration of multiple data sources, (5) ongoing feedback and knowledge dissemination, and (6) adjustments to program practices. We end by providing insights into the lessons that we learned through this project. Through this paper, we describe how researchers and community partners can collaboratively use CBPR and DE to develop a program model in complex community settings. Insights are offered that will be important for researchers, evaluators, and practitioners seeking to develop programming in response to complex community issues.

Engage for Equity: A Long-Term Study of Community-Based Participatory Research and Community-Engaged Research Practices and Outcomes

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and community-engaged research have been established in the past 25 years as valued research approaches within health education, public health, and other health and social sciences for their effectiveness in reducing inequities. While early literature focused on partnering principles and processes, within the past decade, individual studies, as well as systematic reviews, have increasingly documented outcomes in community support and empowerment, sustained partnerships, healthier behaviors, policy changes, and health improvements. Despite enhanced focus on research and health outcomes, the science lags behind the practice. CBPR partnering pathways that result in outcomes remain little understood, with few studies documenting best practices. Since 2006, the University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research with the University of Washington's Indigenous Wellness Research Institute and partners across the country has engaged in targeted investigations to fill this gap in the science. Our inquiry, spanning three stages of National Institutes of Health funding, has sought to identify which partnering practices, under which contexts and conditions, have capacity to contribute to health, research, and community outcomes. This article presents the research design of our current grant, Engage for Equity, including its history, social justice principles, theoretical bases, measures, intervention tools and resources, and preliminary findings about collective empowerment as our middle range theory of change. We end with lessons learned and recommendations for partnerships to engage in collective reflexive practice to strengthen internal power-sharing and capacity to reach health and social equity outcomes.

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

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.