Moving toward synergy: lessons learned in developing and sustaining community-academic partnerships

Small CBPR Grants Program: An Innovative Model to Build Sustainable Academic-Community Partnerships

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an effective approach for addressing health disparities by integrating diverse knowledge and expertise from both academic and community partners throughout the research process. However, more is needed to invest in the foundational infrastructure and resources that are necessary for building and maintaining lasting trusting research partnerships and supporting them to generate impactful CBPR-based research knowledge and solutions. Small CBPR Grants Program is a CBPR-seed-funding program that may be particularly helpful to minority-serving institutions' and universities' goal to invest in genuine community-engaged participatory research. Between 2016 and 2019, the Morgan State University Prevention Sciences Research Center, in collaboration with other community and academic organizations, provided 14 small CBPR awards to new partnerships, and evaluated the success and challenges of the program over a period of three years. To achieve our goal, technical support and training were provided to these partnerships to help with their growth and success. The expected outcomes included trusting relationships and equitable partnerships, as well as publications, presentations, and new proposals and awards to work on mutually identified issues. The program's resulted in continued partnerships beyond the program (in most cases), a founded CBPR Center namely ASCEND, and several secured additional fundings. Keys to the program's success were supporting the formation of research partnerships through networking opportunities and information sessions, as well as providing small grants to incentivize the development of innovative concepts and projects. A learning network and local support group were also created to enhance productivity and the overall impact of each project.

Understanding collaborative implementation between community and academic partners in a complex intervention: a qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Community-academic partnerships (CAPs) can improve the relevance, sustainability, and uptake of new innovations within the community. However, little is known about what topics CAPs focus on and how their discussions and decisions impact implementation at ground level. The objectives of this study were to better understand the activities and learnings from implementation of a complex health intervention by a CAP at the planner/decision-maker level, and how that compared to experiences implementing the program at local sites.

METHODS

The intervention, Health TAPESTRY, was implemented by a nine-partner CAP including academic, charitable organizations, and primary care practices. Meeting minutes were analyzed using qualitative description, latent content analysis, and a member check with key implementors. An open-answer survey about the best and worst elements of the program was completed by clients and health care providers and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 128 meeting minutes were analyzed, 278 providers and clients completed the survey, and six people participated in the member check. Prominent topics of discussion categories from the meeting minutes were: primary care sites, volunteer coordination, volunteer experience, internal and external connections, and sustainability and scalability. Clients liked that they learned new things and gained awareness of community programs, but did not like the volunteer visit length. Clinicians liked the regular interprofessional team meetings but found the program time-consuming.

CONCLUSIONS

An important learning was about who had "voice" at the planner/decision-maker level: many of the topics discussed in meeting minutes were not identified as issues or lasting impacts by clients or providers; this may be due to differing roles and needs, but may also identify a gap. Overall, we identified three phases that could serve as a guide for other CAPs: Phase (1) recruitment, financial support, and data ownership; Phase (2) considerations for modifications and adaptations; Phase (3) active input and reflection.

From the national to the local: Issues of trust and a model for community-academic-engagement

Inequities in health and health care in the United States have persisted for decades, and the impacts on equity from the COVID-19 pandemic were no exception. In addition to the disproportionate burden of the disease across various populations, the pandemic posed several challenges, which exacerbated these existing inequities. This has undoubtedly contributed to deeply rooted public mistrust in medical research and healthcare delivery, particularly among historically and structurally oppressed populations. In the summer of 2020, given the series of social injustices posed by the pandemic and highly publicized incidents of police brutality, notably the murder of George Floyd, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) enlisted the help of a national collaborative, the AAMC Collaborative for Health Equity: Act, Research, Generate Evidence (CHARGE) to establish a three-way partnership that would gather and prioritize community perspectives and lived experiences from multiple regions across the US on the role of academic medicals centers (AMCs) in advancing health and social justice. Given physical gathering constraints posed by the pandemic, virtual interviews were conducted with 30 racially and ethnically diverse community members across the country who expressed their views on how medical education, clinical care, and research could or did impact their health experiences. These interviews were framed within the context of the relationship between historically oppressed groups and the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials underway. From the three-way partnership formed with the AAMC, AAMC CHARGE participants, and 30 community members from racially and ethnically diverse groups, qualitative methods provided lived experiences supporting other literature on the lack of trust between oppressed communities and AMCs. This led to the development of the Principles of Trustworthiness (PoT) Toolkit, which features ten principles inspired by community members' insights into how AMCs can demonstrate they are worthy of their community's trust. In the end, the three-way partnership serves as a successful model for other national medical and health organizations to establish community engaged processes that elicit and prioritize lived experiences describing relationships between AMCs and oppressed communities.

The Benefits, Challenges, and Strategies toward Establishing a Community-Engaged Knowledge Hub: An Integrative Review

Current knowledge creation and mobilization efforts are concentrated in academic institutions. A community-engaged knowledge hub (CEKH) has the potential for transdisciplinary and cross-sectorial collaboration between knowledge producers, mobilizers, and users to develop more relevant and effective research practices as well as to increase community capacity in terms of knowledge production. Objective: To summarize existing original research articles on knowledge hubs or platforms and to identify the benefits, challenges, and ways to address challenges when developing a CEKH. Methods: This study followed a systematic integrative review design. Following a comprehensive search of academic and grey literature databases, we screened 9030 unique articles using predetermined inclusion criteria and identified 20 studies for the final synthesis. We employed thematic analysis to summarize the results. Results: The focus of the majority of these knowledge mobilization hubs was related to health and wellness. Knowledge hubs have a multitude of benefits for the key stakeholders including academics, communities, service providers, and policymakers, including improving dissemination processes, providing more effective community interventions, ensuring informed care, and creating policy assessment tools. Challenges in creating knowledge hubs are generally consistent for all stakeholders, rather than for individual stakeholders, and typically pertain to funding, resources, and conflicting perspectives. As such, strategies to address challenges are also emphasized and should be executed in unison. Conclusions: This study informs the development of a future CEKH through the identification of the benefits, challenges, and strategies to mitigate challenges when developing knowledge hubs. This study addresses a literature gap regarding the comparisons of knowledge hubs and stakeholder experiences.

Cultivating an Ecosystem: A Qualitative Exploration of Sustainability in Long-Standing Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships

Background:

While sustainability is crucial to the success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships, there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what defines sustainability and what characterizes sustainability-promoting practices in long-standing (in existence ≥ 6 years) CBPR partnerships.

Objectives:

The aim of this article is to explore the definition of sustainability, as well as practices that influence sustainability from the perspectives of academic and community experts in long-standing CBPR partnerships.

Methods:

This qualitative analysis is part of Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), a participatory mixed methods validity study that examined “success” and its contributing factors in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Thematic analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews was conducted, including 10 academic and 11 community experts of long-standing CBPR partnerships.

Results:

The key defining components of sustainability we identified include: distinguishing between sustaining the work of the partnership and ongoing relationships among partners; working towards a common goal over time; and enduring changes that impact the partnership. We further identified strengthening and capacity building practices at multiple levels of the partnership that served to promote the sustainability of the partnership’s work and of ongoing relationships among partners.

Conclusions:

Sustainability can be understood as supporting an ecosystem that surrounds the beneficial relationships between academic and community partners. Ongoing evaluation and application of practices that promote the sustainability of partnership activities and relationships may strengthen the long-term effectiveness of CBPR partnerships in advancing health equity.

Cultivating an ecosystem: A qualitative exploration of sustainability in long-standing community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships

Background

While sustainability is crucial to the success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships, there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what defines sustainability and what characterizes sustainability-promoting practices in long-standing (in existence ≥ 6 years) CBPR partnerships.

Objectives

The aim of this article is to explore the definition of sustainability, as well as practices that influence sustainability from the perspectives of academic and community experts in long-standing CBPR partnerships.

Methods

This qualitative analysis is part of Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), a participatory mixed methods validity study that examined "success" and its contributing factors in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Thematic analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews was conducted, including 10 academic and 11 community experts of long-standing CBPR partnerships.

Results

The key defining components of sustainability we identified include: distinguishing between sustaining the work of the partnership and ongoing relationships among partners; working towards a common goal over time; and enduring changes that impact the partnership. We further identified strengthening and capacity building practices at multiple levels of the partnership that served to promote the sustainability of the partnership's work and of ongoing relationships among partners.

Conclusions

Sustainability can be understood as supporting an ecosystem that surrounds the beneficial relationships between academic and community partners. Ongoing evaluation and application of practices that promote the sustainability of partnership activities and relationships may strengthen the long-term effectiveness of CBPR partnerships in advancing health equity.

Cultivating an Ecosystem: A Qualitative Exploration of Sustainability in Long-Standing Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships

Background:

While sustainability is crucial to the success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships, there is a lack of conceptual clarity on what defines sustainability and what characterizes sustainability-promoting practices in long-standing (in existence ≥ 6 years) CBPR partnerships.

Objectives:

The aim of this article is to explore the definition of sustainability, as well as practices that influence sustainability from the perspectives of academic and community experts in long-standing CBPR partnerships.

Methods:

This qualitative analysis is part of Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), a participatory mixed methods validity study that examined “success” and its contributing factors in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Thematic analysis of 21 semi-structured interviews was conducted, including 10 academic and 11 community experts of long-standing CBPR partnerships.

Results:

The key defining components of sustainability we identified include: distinguishing between sustaining the work of the partnership and ongoing relationships among partners; working towards a common goal over time; and enduring changes that impact the partnership. We further identified strengthening and capacity building practices at multiple levels of the partnership that served to promote the sustainability of the partnership’s work and of ongoing relationships among partners.

Conclusions:

Sustainability can be understood as supporting an ecosystem that surrounds the beneficial relationships between academic and community partners. Ongoing evaluation and application of practices that promote the sustainability of partnership activities and relationships may strengthen the long-term effectiveness of CBPR partnerships in advancing health equity.

A Conceptual Framework for Analysing Partnership and Synergy in a Global Health Alliance: Case of the UK Public Health Rapid Support Team (UK-PHRST)

Partnerships have become increasingly important in addressing complex global health challenges, a reality exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic and previous infectious disease epidemics. Partnerships offer opportunities to create synergistic outcomes by capitalizing on complimentary skills, knowledge and resources. Despite the importance of understanding partnership functioning, research on collaboration is sparse and fragmented, with few conceptual frameworks applied to evaluate real-life partnerships in global health. In this study, we aimed to adapt and apply the Bergan Model of Collaborative Functioning (BMCF) to analyse partnership functioning in the UK Public Health Rapid Support Team (UK-PHRST), a government–academic partnership, dedicated to outbreak response and research in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a literature review identifying important elements to adapt the framework, followed by a qualitative case study to characterize how each element, and the dynamics between them, influenced functioning in the UK-PHRST, exploring emerging themes to further refine the framework. Elements of the BMCF that our study reinforced as important included the partnership’s mission, partner resources (skills, expertise and networks), leadership, the external environment, management systems and communication. Additional elements identified in the literature and critical to partnership functioning of the UK-PHRST included governance and financial structures adopted, trust and power balance, organizational culture, strategy and evaluation and knowledge management. Because of the way the UK-PHRST was structured, fostering team cohesion was an important indicator of synergy, alongside collaborative advantage. Dividing the funding and governance equally between organizations was considered crucial for maintaining institutional balance; however, diverse organizational cultures, weak communication practices and perceived power imbalances compromised team cohesion. Our analysis allowed us to make recommendations to improve partnership functioning at a critical time in the evolution of the UK-PHRST. The analysis approach and framework presented here can be used to evaluate and strengthen the management of global health partnerships to realize synergy.

Improving primary health care through partnerships: Key insights from a cross-case analysis of multi-stakeholder partnerships in two Canadian provinces

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multi-stakeholder partnerships offer strategic advantages in addressing multi-faceted issues in complex, fast-paced, and rapidly-evolving community health contexts. Synergistic partnerships mobilize partners' complementary financial and nonfinancial resources, resulting in improved outcomes beyond that achievable through individual efforts. Our objectives were to explore the manifestations of synergy in partnerships involving stakeholders from different organizations with an interest in implementing organizational solutions that enhance access to primary health care (PHC) for vulnerable populations, and to describe structures and processes that facilitated the work of these partnerships.

METHODS

This was a longitudinal case study in two Canadian provinces of two collaborative partnerships involving decision makers, academic representatives, clinicians, health system administrators, patient partners, and representatives of health and social service organizations providing services to vulnerable populations. Document review, nonparticipant observation of partnerships' meetings (n = 14) and semi-structured in-depth interviews (n = 16) were conducted between 2016 and 2018. Data analysis involved a cross-case synthesis to compare the cases and framework analysis to identify prominent themes.

RESULTS

Four major themes emerged from the data. Partnership synergy manifested itself in the following: (a) the integration of resources, (b) partnership atmosphere, (c) perceived stakeholder benefits, and (d) capacity for adaptation to context. Synergy developed before the intended PHC access outcomes could be assessed and acted both as a dynamic indicator of the health of the partnership and a source of energy fuelling partnership improvement and vitality. Synergistic action among multiple stakeholders was achieved through enabling processes at interpersonal, operational, and system levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The partnership synergy framework is useful in assessing the intermediate outcomes of ongoing partnerships when it is too early to evaluate the achievement of long-term intended outcomes. Enabling processes require attention as part of routine partnership assessment.

A study protocol for a multicenter randomized pilot trial of a dyadic, tailored, web-based, psychosocial, and physical activity self-management program (TEMPO) for men with prostate cancer and their caregivers

Background

Prostate cancer predisposes patients and caregivers to a wide range of complex physical and psychosocial challenges, and interventions must incorporate a wide range of self-management strategies to help patients and their caregivers effectively cope with cancer challenges. To palliate this need, our team recently developed and evaluated the initial acceptability of a dyadic, Tailored, wEb-based, psychosocial, and physical activity self-Management PrOgram (TEMPO). TEMPO is a 10-week, interactive, web-based intervention consisting of five modules designed to help dyads manage their physical and psychosocial needs. It aims to teach dyads new self-management strategies and encourages them to increase their physical activity (PA) levels, mainly through walking and strength-based exercises. Initial acceptability evaluation of TEMPO revealed high user satisfaction, in addition to having a number of potential benefits for participants. After integrating suggested changes to TEMPO, the proposed pilot study aims to further test the acceptability and feasibility of TEMPO.

Methods

This study is a multicenter, stratified, parallel, two-group, pilot randomized control trial (RCT), where patient–caregiver dyads are randomized (stratified by anxiety level) to receive (a) TEMPO or (b) usual care. Participants (n goal = 40) are recruited across Canada at participating cancer centers and through self-referral (e.g., online recruitment). Patient inclusion criteria are (a) having received prostate cancer treatment within the past 2 years or scheduled to receive treatment, (b) identified a primary caregiver willing to participate in the study, and (c) has access to the Internet. Eligible caregivers are those identified by the patient as his primary source of support. Dyads complete a baseline questionnaire (T1) and another one 3 months later (T2) assessing various aspects of physical and emotional functioning (e.g., the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)), self-management behaviors (e.g., the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ)), physical activity (the International Physical Activity Questionnaires (IPAQ) and the Multidimensional Self-efficacy for Exercise Scale (MSES)), and dyadic coping (the Dyadic Coping Inventory (DCI)). Dyads that used TEMPO are also asked to participate in a semi-structured exit interview exploring their overall experience with the program.

Discussion

This feasibility analysis will begin to develop the knowledge base on TEMPO’s value for men with prostate cancer and their caregivers to inform a larger trial.

Trial registration

NCT04304196

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00791-6.

Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success: Theory and Methods for Measuring Success in Long-Standing Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships

BACKGROUND

Numerous conceptual frameworks have been developed to understand how community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships function, and multiple measurement approaches have been designed to evaluate them. However, most measures are not validated, and have focused on new partnerships. To define and assess the meaning of success in long-standing CBPR partnerships, we are conducting a CBPR study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS). In this article we describe the theoretical underpinnings and methodological approaches used.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to 1) develop a questionnaire to evaluate success in long-standing CBPR partnerships, 2) test the psychometric qualities of the questionnaire, 3) assess the relationships between key variables and refine the questionnaire and theoretical model, and 4) develop mechanisms and a feedback tool to apply partnership evaluation findings.

METHODS

Methodological approaches have included: engaged a community-academic national Expert Panel; conducted key informant interviews with Expert Panel; conducted a scoping literature review; conducted a Delphi process with the Expert Panel; and revised the measurement instrument. Additional methods include: conduct cognitive interviews and pilot testing; revise and test final version of the questionnaire with long-standing CBPR partnerships; examine the reliability and validity; analyze the relationship among variables in the framework; revise the framework; and develop a feedback mechanism for sharing partnership evaluation results.

CONCLUSIONS

Through the application of a theoretical model and multiple methodological approaches, the MAPS study will result in a validated measurement instrument and will develop procedures for effectively feeding back evaluation findings in order to strengthen authentic partnerships to achieve health equity.

Enhancing Community Engagement by Schools and Programs of Public Health in the United States

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention define community engagement as "the process of working collaboratively with and through groups of people" in order to improve their health and well-being. Central to the field of public health, community engagement should also be at the core of the work of schools and programs of public health. This article reviews best practices and emerging innovations in community engagement for education, for research, and for practice, including critical service-learning, community-based participatory research, and collective impact. Leadership, infrastructure, and culture are key institutional facilitators of successful academic efforts. Major challenges to overcome include mistrust by community members, imbalance of power, and unequal sharing of credit. Success in this work will advance equity and improve health in communities all around the world.

A five-step approach for developing and implementing a Rural Primary Health Care Model for Dementia: a community-academic partnership

Aim

This study is aimed at developing a Rural Primary Health Care (PHC) Model for delivering comprehensive PHC for dementia in rural settings and addressing the gap in knowledge about disseminating and implementing evidence-based dementia care in a rural PHC context.

Background

Limited access to specialists and services in rural areas leads to increased responsibility for dementia diagnosis and management in PHC, yet a gap exists in evidence-based best practices for rural dementia care.

Methods

Elements of the Rural PHC Model for Dementia were based on seven principles of effective PHC for dementia identified from published research and organized into three domains: team-based care, decision support, and specialist-to-provider support. Since 2013 the researchers have collaborated with a rural PHC team in a community of 1000 people in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan to operationalize these elements in ways that were feasible in the local context. The five-step approach included: building relationships; conducting a problem analysis/needs assessment; identifying core and adaptable elements of a decision support tool embedded in the model and resolving applicability issues; implementing and adapting the intervention with local stakeholders; and sustaining the model while incrementally scaling up.

Results

Developing and sustaining relationships at regional and PHC team levels was critical. A comprehensive needs assessment identified challenges related to all domains of the Rural PHC Model. An existing decision support tool for dementia diagnosis and management was adapted and embedded in the team’s electronic medical record. Strategies for operationalizing other model elements included integrating team-based care co-ordination into the decision support tool and family-centered case conferences. Research team specialists provided educational sessions on topics identified by the PHC team. This paper provides an example of a community-based process for adapting evidence-based practice principles to a real-world setting.

Advancing Community-Based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities in Hawai'i: Perspectives from Academic Researchers

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) continues to be recognized as an effective research approach in which academic researchers work in partnership with communities to address health disparities. Although the literature suggests benefits associated with CBPR, more needs to be done to advance CBPR to ultimately reduce health disparities. Hawai'i presents a research-rich opportunity for CBPR because of its ethnic diversity and geographic location, resulting in close-knit communities with unique experiences and concerns. This study aims to better understand the experiences of academic researchers who are conducting CBPR in Hawai'i and their perceptions of its benefits and challenges as well as recommendations to advance the field. Twelve academic researchers with Hawai'i-based CBPR experience were interviewed. Four major themes emerged from their responses: the importance of prioritizing relationship-building; reciprocal learning and other benefits of CBPR; navigating the tensions between CBPR and funding priorities; and building an academic setting that supports CBPR. Increasing awareness of CBPR and its benefits, as well as transforming the culture in all spaces where CBPR occurs may maximize its potential to ultimately promote health equity.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community-Academic Research Partnerships

Community-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who identified and rated the importance of different antecedents of trust on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Study participants were community members ( n = 66), health care providers ( n = 38), and academic researchers ( n = 44). All stakeholder groups rated "authentic communication" and "reciprocal relationships" the highest in importance. Community members rated "communication/methodology to resolve problems" ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) significantly higher than academic researchers ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.67) and health care providers ( M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; p < .01) and had different perspectives regarding the importance of issues related to "sustainability." The importance of communication and relationships across stakeholders indicates the importance of colearning processes that involve the exchange of knowledge and skills. The differences uncovered suggest specific areas where attention and skill building may be needed to improve trust within partnerships. More research on how partnerships can improve communication specific to problem solving and sustainability is merited.

Voices from the street: exploring the realities of family homelessness

Homelessness threatens the health and well-being of thousands of families in the United States, yet little is known about their specific needs and how current services address them. To fill this knowledge gap, we explored the experiences of homelessness families in Detroit, Michigan. We targeted homeless mothers and their caseworkers for study to see if the perceptions of needs and services were in alignment. Using focus groups and content analysis, we identified four overarching themes that illustrate homeless mothers' experience with homelessness. We then analyzed data from caseworkers to look specifically for similarities and differences in their perceptions. Key findings included reports of family histories of violence, poverty, social isolation, and a lack of informal support as contributing to homelessness. The differing perspectives of mothers and their caseworkers regarding how best to move forward highlight how current programs and services may not be meeting the needs of this growing and vulnerable cohort.

Time, dual roles, and departments of public health: lessons learned in CBPR by an AIDS service organization

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an important approach to inform the development and implementation of HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment strategies. However, there is a paucity of literature describing CBPR from the perspective of community-based organizations (CBOs), specifically AIDS service organizations (ASO). Focusing on the perspective of the executive director (ED) from the partnering ASO, we describe in this paper lessons learned during Project Counseling Others About Contacts and Exposures with HIV (COACH), a CBPR, qualitative study intended to examine perspectives and experiences of professionals and clients regarding partner notification (PN) for HIV. Specifically, we describe opportunities and challenges associated with the time investment, balancing a dual role of service provider and researcher, and partnering with the department of public health. This description of the perspective of the ED from the ASO and the associated lessons learned may inform the actions of other CBOs, including ASOs, considering partnering with academic institutions for CBPR.

The developmental stages of a community-university partnership: the experience of Padres Informados/Jovenes Preparados

BACKGROUND

Strong and sustained community-university partnerships are necessary for community-based participatory translational research. Little attention has been paid to understanding the trajectory of research partnerships from a developmental perspective.

OBJECTIVE

To propose a framework describing partnership development and maturation based on Erikson's eight stages of psychosocial development and describe how our collaboration is moving through those stages.

METHODS

Collaborators engaged in three rounds of iterative reflection regarding characteristics and contributors to the maturation of the Padres Informados/Jovenes Preparados (Informed Parents/Prepared Youth [PI/JP]) partnership.

LESSONS LEARNED

Each stage is characterized by broad developmental partnership tasks. Conflict or tension within the partnership is often a part of achieving the associated tasks. The strengths developed at each stage prepare the partnership for challenges associated with subsequent stages.

CONCLUSIONS

This framework could provide a means for partnerships to reflect on their strengths and challenges at a given time point, and to help understand why some partnerships fail whereas others achieve maturity.

External community review committee: a new strategy for engaging community stakeholders in research funding decisions

BACKGROUND

Major gaps exist between what we know and what we do in clinical practice and community health programs and narrowing this gap will require substantive partnerships between academic researchers and the communities they serve.

OBJECTIVES

We describe a research pilot award program that makes a unique commitment to community engagement through the addition of an External Community Review Committee to the typical research review process that gives external stakeholders decision-making power over research funding.

METHODS

Whereas engaging community reviewers in discussion and rating of research proposals is not novel, the ICTR ECRC review process is distinct in that it is subsequent to peer review and uses different criteria and methodology. This method of engagement allows for the community review panel to re-rank scientifically meritorious proposals-such that proposals funded do not necessarily follow the rank order from scientific peer review. The approach taken by UW ICTR differs from those discussed in the literature that present a model of community-academic co-review.

RESULTS

This article provides guidance for others interested in this model of community engagement and reviews insights gained during the evolution of this strategy; including how we addressed conflict, how the committee was able to change the pilot award program over time, and individual roles that were crucial to the success of this approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of this approach include success through traditional academic metrics while achieving an innovative shared-power mechanism for community engagement which we believe is critical for narrowing the gap between knowledge and practice.

Achieving health for a lifetime: a community engagement assessment focusing on school-age children to decrease obesity in Durham, North Carolina

BACKGROUND

Obesity is a prominent problem in the United States and in North Carolina. One way of combating it is with community-engaged interventions that foster collaboration between health-oriented organizations and community residents.

PURPOSE

Our purpose was to assemble a multifaceted group in Durham, North Carolina, to identify factors affecting obesity-related lifestyle behaviors; assess policies, resources, and the population's perception of the problem of obesity; and develop plans to improve health outcomes related to obesity.

METHODS

A team consisting of more than 2 dozen partners was assembled to form Achieving Health for a Lifetime (AHL) in order to study and address obesity in the community, initially focusing on elementary school-age children. The team developed a resource guide by collecting information by telephone interviews of provider organizations; geospatial resource maps were created using high-resolution geographic information systems, Duke's Data Support Repository, and county and city records; and focus groups were conducted using the nominal group technique.

RESULTS

The AHL team, in collaboration with 2 other teams focused on diabetes and cardiovascular disease, identified 32 resources for diabetes, 20 for obesity, and 13 for cardiovascular disease. Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), the team identified an area of Durham that had only 1 supermarket, but 34 fast-food restaurants and 84 convenience stores.

LIMITATIONS

The focus on particular neighborhoods means that the information obtained might not pertain to all neighborhoods.

CONCLUSION

The AHL team was able to assemble a large community partnership in Durham that will allow the members of the community to continue to work toward making residents healthier. Communities facing similar challenges can learn from this experience.

A realist-constructionist perspective on participatory research in health promotion

Clarifying the contours of research in health promotion (HP) is an ongoing challenge. Research in this action-oriented field has traditionally been developed based on values such as participation and empowerment. Consequently, many forms of participatory research have emerged throughout the years, and participatory research has positioned itself as a core competency of HP and public health. This paper argues that participation as a normative stance guiding methodology, or as value, is a fragile posture upon which to position research practices. The argument is based on a realist-constructionist perspective of science and specifically uses Law and Latour's notion of inscription device and Callon's actor-network theory to suggest that participation is an epistemological necessity and that participatory research practices may be considered as inscription devices. These theoretical notions help clarify the consequences of participation on knowledge production. Finally, the article refers to Stengers's work to propose an ecology of research practices that defines obligations and exigencies for HP with respect to knowledge production and that are more consistent with the field's values of social justice and equity.

An academic-health service partnership in nursing: lessons from the field

PURPOSE

To describe the development of an academic-health services partnership undertaken to improve use of evidence in clinical practice.

APPROACH

Academic health science schools and health service settings share common elements of their missions: to educate, participate in research, and excel in healthcare delivery, but differences in the business models, incentives, and approaches to problem solving can lead to differences in priorities. Thus, academic and health service settings do not naturally align their leadership structures or work processes. We established a common commitment to accelerate the appropriate use of evidence in clinical practice and created an organizational structure to optimize opportunities for partnering that would leverage shared resources to achieve our goal.

FINDINGS

A jointly governed and funded institute integrated existing activities from the academic and service sectors. Additional resources included clinical staff and student training and mentoring, a pilot research grant-funding program, and support to access existing data. Emergent developments include an appreciation for a wider range of investigative methodologies and cross-disciplinary teams with skills to integrate research in daily practice and improve patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

By developing an integrated leadership structure and commitment to shared goals, we developed a framework for integrating academic and health service resources, leveraging additional resources, and forming a mutually beneficial partnership to improve clinical outcomes for patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Structurally integrated academic-health service partnerships result in improved evidence-based patient care delivery and in a stronger foundation for generating new clinical knowledge, thus improving patient outcomes.