Research for improved health: variability and impact of structural characteristics in federally funded community engaged research

A stakeholder engagement method navigator webtool for clinical and translational science

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly expected by funders and valued by researchers in clinical and translational science, yet many researchers lack access to expert consultation or training in selecting appropriate stakeholder engagement methods. We describe the development of a novel Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool. We conducted an environmental scan and literature review, along with investigator interviews, surveys, and engagement expert facilitated group discussion. We formally reviewed and cataloged 29 distinct engagement methods. To develop the webtool, we used an iterative design process that followed Design Thinking phases: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. As prioritized during user testing, the Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool both educates and guides investigators in selecting an engagement method based on key criteria. The V1.0 Navigator webtool filters methods first by purpose of engagement (noted by 62% of users as the highest priority criteria), then by budget, time per stakeholder interaction, and total interactions. The tool is available at DICEMethods.org. The Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool is a user-centered, interactive webtool suitable for use by researchers seeking guidance on appropriate stakeholder engagement methods for clinical and translational research projects.

Personal Outcomes in Community-based Participatory Research Partnerships: A Cross-site Mixed Methods Study

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been embraced by diverse populations to address health inequities within their communities. CBPR has been shown to produce favorable health outcomes, but little is known about personal outcomes (e.g., individual growth and capacities) resulting from the direct involvement in a CBPR partnership. We empirically examine which CBPR partnerships' processes and practices are associated with personal outcomes. We hypothesize that higher levels of collaborative approaches and adherence to CBPR principles and practices would be associated with personal outcomes. Based on a national cross-site CBPR study, Research for Improved Health, we utilized mixed-method data from a comprehensive community-engagement survey (N = 450) and seven in-depth case studies to explore the hypothesized relationships. Our multivariate mixed-effects model revealed the importance of various partnering practices. Relationship dynamics emerged as key predictors including the following: respect in the partnership, voice and influence in decision-making among partners, and stewardship. Qualitative findings highlighted individual, partnership, and community-level impacts, within and beyond the partnership. Our findings have implications for CBPR best practices and highlight the potential role of personal outcomes for partnerships' sustainability, long-term outcomes, and health equity research.

Community-Academic Partnerships to Reduce Cancer Inequities: The ChicagoCHEC Community Engagement Core

BACKGROUND

In 2015, Chicago Cancer Health Equity Collaborative (ChicagoCHEC) was formed to address cancer inequities. The Community Engagement Core (CEC) is one of the key components aimed at establishing meaningful partnerships between the academic institutions and the community. Herein, we describe ChicagoCHEC CEC processes, challenges, opportunities, successes, and preliminary evaluation results.

METHODS

CEC stresses participatory and empowerment approaches in all aspects of ChicagoCHEC work. Evaluation processes were conducted to assess, report back, and respond to community needs and to evaluate the strength of the partnership.

RESULTS

CEC has facilitated meaningful community integration and involvement in all ChicagoCHEC work. The partnership resulted in annual cancer symposium; more than 50 outreach and education activities, including cancer screening and referrals; the development of health resources; and providing expertise in culturally and health literacy appropriate research targeting minorities. Preliminary partnership evaluation results show that ChicagoCHEC researchers and community partners have developed trust and cohesiveness and value the community benefits resulting from the partnership.

CONCLUSIONS

CEC is essential in achieving research objectives following community participatory action research (CPAR) approaches. Some key lessons learned include 1) the need for clear, honest, and open channels of communication not only among the three participating academic institutions, but also among the community partners, 2) transparent operational processes, and 3) mutual trust and understanding regarding the different cultures, structure, foci and processes, expectations at each institution and partnering organization.

Community-Engaged Research: Exploring a Tool for Action and Advocacy

Trauma psychologists seeking to engage in evidence-based advocacy and action may benefit from methods that prioritize public problem solving. Community-engaged research (CEnR) is one such method, characterized by reciprocal and mutually beneficial partnerships between academic researchers and community organizations to address public problems. The CEnR framework is designed and implemented in the context of researcher-community partnership; as such, the findings from this approach promise to be responsive to the real-world concerns of communities seeking to address trauma. This manuscript first articulates the rationale for CEnR in evidence-based advocacy and action. Next, we provide illustrations from our research team's CEnR focus on access to victim service and legal information following interpersonal traumas. We describe how CEnR positioned our team to be responsive in a quickly evolving sociopolitical context while providing data needed for community partners and trauma researchers alike to advocate for survivors and victim services. With this example as a jumping-off point, we discuss potential systemic changes that could foster increased use of CEnR strategies to address trauma-related problems in our communities.

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.

Space within the Scientific Discourse for the Voice of the Other? Expressions of Community Voice in the Scientific Discourse of Community-Based Participatory Research

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has captured public health attention and support because it is positioned as an approach that involves researchers and communities as equitable partners in addressing health disparities. However, it is unknown the extent to which CBPR creates a participatory space in the scientific discourse to signal "community voice," which we define as textual expression of community-centered perspectives on collective roles, interests, and worldviews. In this study, we utilized the culture-centered approach to examine the expression of community voice in the abstracts and public health relevance statements of 253 extramural CBPR projects in the U.S. that received funding from the National Institute of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2009. We found that project abstracts and public health relevance statements contain four textual domains, or potential sites of contest to signal the articulation of community agency and voice within the CBPR projects. These domains include: 1) the rationale for the community health issue, 2) the roles of community partners, 3) community-centered outcomes of the partnership, and 4) elements of participatory research process. The degree of culture-centeredness of the texts is suggested in the extent to which articulations of community agency and voice are signaled across the four domains. We conclude that the dynamics of CBPR may shape culture-centered expressions of problem identification, solution configuration, structural transformations, reflexivity, values, and agency in the project abstracts and public health relevance statements.

Partnerships, Processes, and Outcomes: A Health Equity-Focused Scoping Meta-Review of Community-Engaged Scholarship

In recent decades, there has been remarkable growth in scholarship examining the usefulness of community-engaged research (CEnR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) for eliminating health inequities.This article seeks to synthesize the extant literature of systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and other related reviews regarding the context, processes, and research designs and interventions underlying CEnR that optimize its effectiveness. Through a scoping review, we have utilized an empirically derived framework of CBPR to map this literature and identify key findings and priorities for future research. Our study found 100 reviews of CEnR that largely support the CBPR conceptual framework.

Power Dynamics in Community-Based Participatory Research: A Multiple-Case Study Analysis of Partnering Contexts, Histories, and Practices

Community-based participatory research has a long-term commitment to principles of equity and justice with decades of research showcasing the added value of power-sharing and participatory involvement of community members for achieving health, community capacity, policy, and social justice outcomes. Missing, however, has been a clear articulation of how power operates within partnership practices and the impact of these practices on outcomes. The National Institutes of Health-funded Research for Improved Health study (2009-2013), having surveyed 200 partnerships, then conducted seven in-depth case studies to better understand which partnership practices can best build from community histories of organizing to address inequities. The diverse case studies represented multiple ethnic-racial and other marginalized populations, health issues, and urban and rural areas and regions. Cross-cutting analyses of the qualitative results focus on how oppressive and emancipatory forms of power operate within partnerships in response to oppressive conditions or emancipatory histories of advocacy within communities. The analysis of power was conducted within each of the four domains of the community-based participatory research conceptual model, starting from how contexts shape partnering processes to impact short-term intervention and research outputs, and contribute to outcomes. Similarities and differences in how partnerships leveraged and addressed their unique contexts and histories are presented, with both structural and relational practices that intentionally addressed power relations. These results demonstrate how community members draw from their resilience and strengths to combat histories of injustice and oppression, using partnership principles and practices toward multilevel outcomes that honor community knowledge and leadership, and seek shared power, policy, and community transformation changes, thereby advancing health equity.

NIH-Funded CBPR: Self-Reported Community Partner and Investigator Perspectives

The community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach across health contexts has matured greatly over the last 20 years. Though contributions to the literature on the development and effectiveness of CBPR interventions have grown, the number of publications on the function and evaluation of actual community-research partnerships has not kept pace. To help address that gap, we searched National Institutes of Health archival data and identified a set of 489 CBPR projects including collaboration-building, exploratory/pilot, research, and program project grants. We found community partner contact information commonly was absent from grant records and contacted principal investigators (PIs) for community-partner contact information. Subsequently, we built upon established measures to ask principal investigators and community partners for their perceptions of participation in NIH-funded CBPR projects. Many principal investigators and community partners reported existing collaborations-between academicians and community organizations as well as among community organizations. Partners tended to agree on the appropriateness of funding levels to accomplish projects and on the community partners' ability to recruit and retain participants, collect data, and implement interventions. Partners differed in perceptions of participation in research design, data analyses, manuscript and presentation production, and dissemination of findings. Suggestions include collection of lead community partner information without undue burden and increased standard education and involvement of community organizations in research vocabulary and practices.

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.

Toward Health Equity: A National Study of Promising Practices in Community-Based Participatory Research

OBJECTIVES

In the first nationwide study of community- academic research partnerships, we identified contextual and partnership practices that were significantly correlated with successful partnership outcomes guided by a community-based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model.

METHODS

Data collection included three stages: 294 community-engaged research (CEnR) projects in 2009 identified from federally funded grant databases; 200 (68.0%) principal investigators (PI) completed a key informant survey that included measures of power/resource sharing and structural characteristics of projects; 312 (77.2% of invited) community partners and 138 PI (69.0% of invited) responded to a survey including research context, process, and outcome measures.

RESULTS

Context and process correlates accounted for 21% to 67% of the variance in the specific outcomes. Seven categories of research partnership practices were positively associated with successful synergy, capacity, and health outcomes: power sharing, partnership capacity, bridging social capital, shared values, community involvement in research, mutuality, and ethical management.

CONCLUSIONS

Through empirical testing of an innovative, multidisciplinary CBPR model, key context and process practices were identified that confirm the positive impact of partnership evaluation and self-reflection on research outcomes. Further, these findings provide academic and other key stakeholders with real-world practical recommendations to engage agencies, groups, and individuals who suffer most from inequities and may have unrecognized or indigenous knowledge, experience, and leadership to contribute to health and social research and to the creation of paths to wellness.

Impact of Participatory Health Research: A Test of the Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model

Objectives

A key challenge in evaluating the impact of community-based participatory research (CBPR) is identifying what mechanisms and pathways are critical for health equity outcomes. Our purpose is to provide an empirical test of the CBPR conceptual model to address this challenge.

Methods

A three-stage quantitative survey was completed: (1) 294 US CBPR projects with US federal funding were identified; (2) 200 principal investigators completed a questionnaire about project-level details; and (3) 450 community or academic partners and principal investigators completed a questionnaire about perceived contextual, process, and outcome variables. Seven in-depth qualitative case studies were conducted to explore elements of the model not captured in the survey; one is presented due to space limitations.

Results

We demonstrated support for multiple mechanisms illustrated by the conceptual model using a latent structural equation model. Significant pathways were identified, showing the positive association of context with partnership structures and dynamics. Partnership structures and dynamics showed similar associations with partnership synergy and community involvement in research; both of these had positive associations with intermediate community changes and distal health outcomes. The case study complemented and extended understandings of the mechanisms of how partnerships can improve community conditions.

Conclusions

The CBPR conceptual model is well suited to explain key relational and structural pathways for impact on health equity outcomes.

Patient-centered recruitment and retention for a randomized controlled study

Background

Recruitment and retention strategies for patient-centered outcomes research are evolving and research on the subject is limited. In this work, we present a conceptual model of patient-centered recruitment and retention, and describe the recruitment and retention activities and related challenges in a patient-centered comparative effectiveness trial.

Methods

This is a multicenter, longitudinal randomized controlled trial in localized prostate cancer patients.

Results

We recruited 743 participants from three sites over 15 months period (January 2014 to March 2015), and followed them for 24 months. At site 1, of the 773 eligible participants, 551 (72%) were enrolled. At site 2, 34 participants were eligible and 23 (68%) enrolled. Of the 434 eligible participants at site 3, 169 (39%) enrolled. We observed that strategies related to the concepts of trust (e.g., physician involvement, ensuring protection of information), communication (e.g., brochures and pamphlets in physicians’ offices, continued contact during regular clinic visits and calling/emailing assessment), attitude (e.g., emphasizing the altruistic value of research, positive attitude of providers and research staff), and expectations (e.g., full disclosure of study requirements and time commitment, update letters) facilitated successful patient recruitment and retention. A stakeholders’ advisory board provided important input for the recruitment and retention activities. Active engagement, reminders at the offices, and personalized update letters helped retention during follow-up. Usefulness of telephone recruitment was site specific and, at one site, the time requirement for telephone recruitment was a challenge.

Conclusions

We have presented multilevel strategies for successful recruitment and retention in a clinical trial using a patient-centered approach. Our strategies were flexible to accommodate site-level requirements. These strategies as well as the challenges can aid recruitment and retention efforts of future large-scale, patient-centered research studies.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02032550. Registered on 22 November 2013.

Development of a Mixed Methods Investigation of Process and Outcomes of Community-Based Participatory Research

This article describes a mixed methods study of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership practices and the links between these practices and changes in health status and disparities outcomes. Directed by a CBPR conceptual model and grounded in indigenous-transformative theory, our nation-wide, cross-site study showcases the value of a mixed methods approach for better understanding the complexity of CBPR partnerships across diverse community and research contexts. The article then provides examples of how an iterative, integrated approach to our mixed methods analysis yielded enriched understandings of two key constructs of the model: trust and governance. Implications and lessons learned while using mixed methods to study CBPR are provided.

Advancing system and policy changes for social and racial justice: comparing a Rural and Urban Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership in the U.S

BACKGROUND

The paper examines the role of community-based participatory research (CBPR) within the context of social justice literature and practice.

METHODS

Two CBPR case studies addressing health inequities related to Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular disease were selected from a national cross-site study assessing effective academic-community research partnerships. One CBPR partnership works with African Americans in rural Pemiscot County, Missouri and the other CBPR partnership works with African American and Latinos in urban South Bronx, New York City. Data collection included semi-structured key informant interviews and focus groups. Analysis focused on partnerships' context/history and their use of multiple justice-oriented strategies to achieve systemic and policy changes in order to address social determinants of health in their communities.

RESULTS

Community context and history shaped each partnership's strategies to address social determinants. Four social justice approaches (identity/recognition, procedural, distributive, and structural justice) used by both partnerships were identified. These social justice approaches were employed to address underlying causes of inequitable distribution of resources and power structures, while remaining within a scientific research framework.

CONCLUSION

CBPR can bridge the role of science with civic engagement and political participation, empowering community members to become political agents who integrate evidence into their social justice organizing strategies.

Community-Based Participatory Research Conceptual Model: Community Partner Consultation and Face Validity

A national community-based participatory research (CBPR) team developed a conceptual model of CBPR partnerships to understand the contribution of partnership processes to improved community capacity and health outcomes. With the model primarily developed through academic literature and expert consensus building, we sought community input to assess face validity and acceptability. Our research team conducted semi-structured focus groups with six partnerships nationwide. Participants validated and expanded on existing model constructs and identified new constructs based on "real-world" praxis, resulting in a revised model. Four cross-cutting constructs were identified: trust development, capacity, mutual learning, and power dynamics. By empirically testing the model, we found community face validity and capacity to adapt the model to diverse contexts. We recommend partnerships use and adapt the CBPR model and its constructs, for collective reflection and evaluation, to enhance their partnering practices and achieve their health and research goals.

Community centrality and social science research

Community centrality is a growing requirement of social science. The field's research practices are increasingly expected to conform to prescribed relationships with the people studied. Expectations about community centrality influence scholarly activities. These expectations can pressure social scientists to adhere to models of community involvement that are immediate and that include community-based co-investigators, advisory boards, and liaisons. In this context, disregarding community centrality can be interpreted as failure. This paper considers evolving norms about the centrality of community in social science. It problematises community inclusion and discusses concerns about the impact of community centrality on incremental theory development, academic integrity, freedom of speech, and the value of liberal versus communitarian knowledge. Through the application of a constructivist approach, this paper argues that social science in which community is omitted or on the periphery is not failed science, because not all social science requires a community base to make a genuine and valuable contribution. The utility of community centrality is not necessarily universal across all social science pursuits. The practices of knowing within social science disciplines may be difficult to transfer to a community. These practices of knowing require degrees of specialisation and interest that not all communities may want or have.

Enhancing stewardship of community-engaged research through governance

OBJECTIVES

We explored the relationship of community-engaged research final approval type (tribal government, health board, or public health office (TG/HB); agency staff or advisory board; or individual or no community approval) with governance processes, productivity, and perceived outcomes.

METHODS

We identified 294 federally funded community-engaged research projects in 2009 from the National Institutes of Health's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers, and Native American Research Centers for Health databases. Two hundred (68.0%) investigators completed a survey about governance processes and productivity measures; 312 partners (77.2% of 404 invited) and 138 investigators (69.0% of 200 invited) completed a survey about perceived outcomes.

RESULTS

Projects with TG/HB approval had increased likelihood of community control of resources (odds ratios [ORs] ≥ 4.80). Projects with other approvals had decreased likelihood of development or revision of institutional review board policies (ORs ≤ 0.37), having written agreements (ORs ≤ 0.17), and agreements about publishing (ORs ≤ 0.28), data use (ORs ≤ 0.17), and publishing approval (ORs ≤ 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Community-engaged research projects with TG/HB approval had strong stewardship of project resources and agreements. Governance as stewardship protects community interests; thus, is an ethical imperative for communities, especially native communities, to adopt.

Establishing the psychometric properties of constructs in a community-based participatory research conceptual model

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to establish the psychometric properties of 22 measures from a community-based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model.

DESIGN

The design of this study was an online, cross-sectional survey of academic and community partners involved in a CPBR project.

SETTING

CPBR projects (294) in the United States with federal funding in 2009.

SUBJECTS

Of the 404 academic and community partners invited, 312 (77.2%) participated. Of the 200 principal investigators/project directors invited, 138 (69.0%) participated.

MEASURES

Twenty-two measures of CBPR context, group dynamics, methods, and health-related outcomes were examined.

ANALYSIS

Confirmatory factor analysis to establish factorial validity and Pearson correlations to establish convergent and divergent validity were used.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated strong factorial validity for the 22 constructs. Pearson correlations (p < .001) supported the convergent and divergent validity of the measures. Internal consistency was strong, with 18 of 22 measures achieving at least a .78 Cronbach α.

CONCLUSION

CBPR is a key approach for health promotion in underserved communities and/or communities of color, yet the basic psychometric properties of CBPR constructs have not been well established. This study provides evidence of the factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity and the internal consistency of 22 measures related to the CBPR conceptual model. Thus, these measures can be used with confidence by both CBPR practitioners and researchers to evaluate their own CBPR partnerships and to advance the science of CBPR.