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

Validation of the Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS) Questionnaire

Conceptualizing and testing factors that contribute to the success of community-academic partnerships are critical to understanding their contributions to the health and well-being of communities. Most measures to date focus on factors that contribute to the development of new partnerships, and only a few have been adequately tested and validated. Methods. The Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS) study followed a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach and a multiphase process that included the construction and pilot testing of a questionnaire, and a national survey to validate the psychometric properties of the questionnaire in long-standing CBPR partnerships (existing ≥ six years). All members within partnerships were recruited to complete the survey (55 partnerships with 563 partners). We used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), Cronbach's alpha statistics, and a pairwise correlations approach to assess discriminant and convergent validity, and assessed internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Results. All MAPS Questionnaire dimensions demonstrated strong validity and reliability and demonstrated agreement over time. Conclusion. The MAPS Questionnaire includes seven dimensions and 81 items related to the MAPS conceptual model and provides a scientific, in-depth measurement tool that allows long-standing CBPR partnerships to evaluate their work toward achieving health equity.

Lessons learned in measuring patient engagement in a Canada-wide childhood disability network

BACKGROUND

The CHILD-BRIGHT Network, a pan-Canadian childhood disability research Network, is dedicated to patient-oriented research, where numerous stakeholders, including patient-partners, researchers, and clinicians are involved at different levels. The Network is committed to continuously improving the level of engagement and partnerships' impact. Measuring patient engagement is therefore important in reflecting on our practices and enhancing our approaches. We aimed to measure patient engagement longitudinally and explore in greater depth the perceived benefits, barriers and facilitators, and overall satisfaction with patient engagement, from the perspectives of the different stakeholders.

METHODS

Patient engagement was measured using online surveys. In a longitudinal study design over a 3-years period (2018-2020) the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) questionnaire was used. To enrich our understanding of patient engagement in Year 3, we employed the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) in a cross-sectional, convergent parallel mixed-method study design. Descriptive statistics and a thematic-based approach were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

The CBPR questionnaire was completed by n = 167 (61.4% response rate), n = 92 (30.2% response rate), and n = 62 (14.2% response rate) Network members in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Ninety-five (n = 95, 21.8% response rate) members completed the PPEET in Year 3. CBPR findings demonstrate a stable and high satisfaction level with patient engagement over time, where 94%, 86%, and 94% of stakeholders indicated that the project is a "true partnership" in Years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. In Years 2 and 3, we noted an improvement in patient-partners' comfort level in sharing their views and perspectives (92% and 91% vs. 74%). An increase in critical reflective trust (i.e., allowing for discussing and resolving mistakes) from Year 1 to 3 was found, both from the perspectives of patient-partners (51-65%) and researchers (48-75%). Using the PPEET, patient engagement factors (i.e., communications and supports for participation, ability to share views and perspectives) and impact were highly rated by most (80-100%) respondents. PPEET's qualitative responses revealed several patient engagement advantages (e.g., increased projects' relevance, enhanced knowledge translation), barriers (e.g., group homogeneity), facilitators (e.g., optimal communication strategies), and solutions to further improve patient engagement (e.g., provide clarity on goals).

CONCLUSION

Our 3-years patient engagement evaluation journey demonstrated a consistent and high level of satisfaction with patient engagement within the Network and identified advantages, barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions. Improvements were observed in members' comfort in sharing their views and perspectives, along with an increase in critical reflective trust. These findings underscore the Network's commitment to enhancing patient engagement and provide valuable insights for continued improvement and optimization of collaborative efforts.

Community Engagement Strategies for Underrepresented Racial and Ethnic Populations

The representation of racial and ethnic minority populations in clinical trials continues to be a challenge despite mandates, good intentions, and concerted efforts by funding agencies, regulatory bodies, and researchers to close the clinical trials gap. A lack of diversity in research results in both continued disparities and poorer health outcomes. It is thus imperative that investigators understand and effectively address the challenges of clinical trials participation by underrepresented populations. In this paper, we expound on best practices for participatory research by clearly defining the community, highlighting the importance of proper identification and engagement of strong community partners, and exploring patient- and provider-level barriers and facilitators that require consideration. A clearer understanding of the balance of power between researchers and community partners is needed for any approach that addresses clinical trials representation. Unintended biases in study design and methods may continue to prevent racial and ethnic minority participants from taking part, and significant organizational changes are necessary for efficient and transparent relationships. Comprehensive community engagement in research includes dissemination of clinical trial results within and in partnership with community partners. Through careful deliberation and honest reflection, investigators, institutions, and community partners can develop the tailored blueprints of research collaborations essential for true equity in clinical trials.

Co-constructing collaboration: An evidence-based approach to advance and evaluate equitable global public health research partnerships

Equitable global health partnerships are essential to promote innovative research and strengthen research capacity to address critical public health challenges, but how to optimally evaluate such collaborations is unclear. This was a sequential, multi-method study that utilized an electronic survey informed by the literature followed by semi-structured interviews to comprehensively evaluate the experience of participating in a global research-capacity building collaboration between Nepal and U.S. clinicians and investigators. De-identified quantitative survey were analyzed to calculate descriptive and summary statistics, along with crosstabs of each variable by group. Groups were defined based on country-of-origin and Chi Square statistics calculated to assess for statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between groups. Interviews were analyzed using a descriptive qualitative approach to develop an overall thematic map. 22 survey responses (52.4% response rate) were analyzed; 13 (59.1%) from Nepal, 9 (40.9%) from the U.S. Eight participants (4 Nepal; 4 U.S.) were interviewed. Over the course of the project, all participants reported gaining experience and confidence with research. The majority of participants "strongly agreed" there was a shared understanding of goals, priorities and strategies (Nepal, 58.3%, n = 7; U.S., 88.9%, n = 8;) and that power was shared equally (Nepal, 58.3%, n = 7; U.S., 55.6%, n = 5). The over-arching theme that emerged from the interviews was the importance of 'establishing community' which participants discussed within the broader context of COVID-19. Overall, team members reported strong bi-directional benefit and a greater emphasis on perceived benefits versus challenges. Our survey tool and interview guide, designed to holistically evaluate the impact of a global partnership across various levels of the Social Ecological Model, with particular attention to power dynamics and equity, can be adapted and used by others engaged in similar research capacity collaborations.

Strategies for enacting health policy codesign: a scoping review and direction for research

BACKGROUND

Strategies for supporting evidence-informed health policy are a recognized but understudied area of policy dissemination and implementation science. Codesign describes a set of strategies potentially well suited to address the complexity presented by policy formation and implementation. We examine the health policy literature describing the use of codesign in initiatives intended to combine diverse sources of knowledge and evidence in policymaking.

METHODS

The search included PubMed, MEDLINE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar in November 2022 and included papers published between 1996 and 2022. Terms included codesign, health, policy, and system terminology. Title and abstracts were reviewed in duplicate and included if efforts informed policy or system-level decision-making. Extracted data followed scoping review guidelines for location, evaluation method, health focus, codesign definition, description, level of health system user input, sectors involved, and reported benefits and challenges.

RESULTS

From 550 titles, 23 citations describing 32 policy codesign studies were included from multiple continents (Australia/New Zealand, 32%; UK/Europe, 32%; South America, 14%; Africa, 9%; USA/Canada 23%). Document type was primarily case study (77%). The area of health focus was widely distributed. Policy type was more commonly little p policy (47%), followed by big p policy (25%), and service innovations that included policy-enabled funding (25%). Models and frameworks originated from formal design (e.g., human-centered or participatory design (44%), political science (38%), or health service research (16%). Reported outcomes included community mobilization (50%), policy feasibility (41%), improved multisector alignment (31%), and introduction of novel ideas and critical thinking (47%). Studies engaging policy users in full decision-making roles self-reported higher levels of community mobilization and community needs than other types of engagement.

DISCUSSION

Policy codesign is theoretically promising and is gaining interest among diverse health sectors for addressing the complexity of policy formation and implementation. The maturity of the science is just emerging. We observed trends in the association of codesign strategies and outcomes that suggests a research agenda in this area could provide practical insights for tailoring policy codesign to respond to local contextual factors including values, needs, and resources.

Transforming the field: the role of academic health centers in promoting and sustaining equity based community engaged research

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and community engaged research (CEnR) are key to promoting community and patient engagement in actionable evidence-based strategies to improve research for health equity. Rapid growth of CBPR/CEnR research projects have led to the broad adoption of partnering principles in community-academic partnerships and among some health and academic organizations. Yet, transformation of principles into best practices that foster trust, shared power, and equity outcomes still remain fragmented, are dependent on individuals with long term projects, or are non-existent. This paper describes how we designed our Engage for Equity PLUS intervention that leverages the leadership and membership of champion teams (including community-engaged faculty, community partners and patient advocates) to improve organizational policies and practices to support equity based CBPR/CEnR. This article describes the feasibility and preliminary findings from engaging champion teams from three very different academic health centers. We reflect on the learnings from Engage for Equity PLUS; the adaptation of the intervention design and implementation, including the development of a new institutional assessment using mixed research methods; and our organizational theory of change. In summary, our design and preliminary data from the three academic health centers provide support for new attention to the role of institutional practices and processes needed to sustain equity-based patient and community-engaged research and CBPR and transform the field.

Developing relevant assessments of community-engaged research partnerships: A community-based participatory approach to evaluating clinical and health research study teams

Background/Objective

In 2017, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) and community partners in Flint, Michigan collaborated to launch a research funding program and evaluate the dynamics of those research partnerships receiving funding. While validated assessments for community-engaged research (CEnR) partnerships were available, the study team found none sufficiently relevant to conducting CEnR in the context of the work. MICHR faculty and staff along with community partners living and working in Flint used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to develop and administer a locally relevant assessment of CEnR partnerships that were active in Flint in 2019 and 2021.

Methods

Surveys were administered each year to over a dozen partnerships funded by MICHR to evaluate how community and academic partners assessed the dynamics and impact of their study teams over time.

Results

The results suggest that partners believed that their partnerships were engaging and highly impactful. Although many substantive differences between community and academic partners' perceptions over time were identified, the most notable regarded the financial management of the partnerships.

Conclusion

This work contributes to the field of translational science by evaluating how the financial management of community-engaged health research partnerships in a locally relevant context of Flint can be associated with these teams' scientific productivity and impact with national implications for CEnR. This work presents evaluation methods which can be used by clinical and translational research centers that strive to implement and measure their use of CBPR approaches.

Examining the influence of group diversity on the functioning of community-based participatory research partnerships: A mixed methods study

Public health has endorsed the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) to address health inequities involving diverse and marginalized communities. However, few studies have examined how group diversity among members of CBPR partnerships influenced how well the partnerships achieve their goals of addressing health inequities through equitable collaboration. We conducted secondary, convergent, mixed methods analysis to (1) evaluate the association between group diversity and participatory decision-making within CBPR partnerships, and (2) identify the perceived characteristics, benefits, and challenges of group diversity within CBPR partnerships. Using data from a cross-site study of federally funded CBPR partnerships, we analyzed and integrated data from surveys of 163 partnerships (n = 448 partners) and seven in-depth case study interviews (n = 55 partners). Quantitatively, none of the measured characteristics of group diversity was associated with participatory decision-making within the partnerships. Qualitatively, we found that partnerships mainly benefited from membership differences in functional characteristics (e.g., skillset) but faced challenges from membership differences in sociocultural characteristics (e.g., gender and race). The integrated findings suggest the need to further understand how emergent group characteristics and how practices that engage in group diversity contribute to collective functioning of the partnerships. Attention to this area can help promote health equity achievements of CBPR partnerships.

Increasing research capacity in community organizations: Findings from the Community Research Scholars Initiative

Increasing research capacity in community-based organizations (CBOs) can equip the organizations to be more equal partners in academic/community partnerships and can help them be more accountable to their clients and funders. In this study, we report on findings from four years of data collected from the Community Research Scholars Initiative (CRSI) in Cleveland, Ohio. CRSI provided intensive research training over two years to two cohorts (N = 9) of frontline workers ("Scholars") from CBOs focused on health disparities. Scholars completed one year of didactic training and one year of mentoring to complete a research project based at their organization. Findings from surveys, focus groups with Scholars, and supervisor interviews indicated changes in Scholars' knowledge, confidence, and comfort with research concepts and skills. Scholars also demonstrated greater confidence in interacting with academic researchers, enhanced networks and career opportunities, and increased capacity for conducting community-based research. Scholar and organization engagement with community-based research was maintained after the program's end through a community-based research network (CBRN). Findings suggest that the intensive training program for community members with a broad curriculum, mentoring, and strong support helped changed how CBOs think about data and research and demonstrate the impact of their work.

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.

Building capacity in quantitative research and data storytelling to enhance knowledge translation: a training curriculum for peer researchers

BACKGROUND

Many community-based HIV research studies incorporate principles of greater involvement and meaningful engagement of people living with HIV (GIPA/MEPA) by training people with HIV as peer researchers. Unfortunately, there are still some aspects of research (e.g., quantitative data analysis and interpretation) where many projects fall short in realizing GIPA/MEPA principles. To address these gaps, we developed an eight-week training course that aimed to build the capacity of peer researchers around the understanding and interpretation of quantitative data and incorporating lived experience to increase the impact of the knowledge transfer and exchange phase of a study.

METHODS

Peer researchers (n = 8) participated from British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario and lessons learned from the training were implemented throughout the dissemination of research findings from the People Living with HIV Stigma Index study. This paper presents the curriculum and main training components, course evaluation results, and challenges and lessons learned. The manuscript was created in collaboration with and includes the perspectives of both the peer researchers involved in the training, as well the course facilitators.

RESULTS

Throughout the course, peer researchers' self-assessed knowledge and understanding of quantitative research and data storytelling improved and, through interactive activities and practice, they gained the confidence to deliver a full research presentation. This improved their understanding of research findings, which was beneficial for discussing results with community partners and study participants. The peer researchers also agreed that learning about integrating lived experience with quantitative data has helped them to make research findings more relatable and convey key messages in a more meaningful way.

CONCLUSIONS

Our training curriculum provides a template for research teams to build capacity in areas of research where peer researchers and community members are less often engaged. In doing so, we continue to uphold the principles of GIPA/MEPA and enhance the translation of research knowledge in communities most greatly affected.

A Guide to Selecting Participatory Research Methods Based on Project and Partnership Goals

Participatory research engages community stakeholders in the research process, from problem identification and developing the research question, to dissemination of results. There is increasing recognition in the field of health research that community-engaged methods can be used throughout the research process. The volume of guidance for engaging communities and conducting participatory research has grown steadily in the past 40+ years, in many countries and contexts. Further, some institutions now require stakeholder engagement in research as a condition of funding. Interest in collaborating in the research process is also growing among patients and the public. This article provides an overview for selecting participatory research methods based on project and partnerships goals.

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.

Interdisciplinary collaborations in digital health research: a case study using quantitative and qualitative survey methods (Preprint)

Background

Digital innovations in medicine are disruptive technologies that can change the way diagnostic procedures and treatments are delivered. Such innovations are typically designed in teams with different disciplinary backgrounds. This paper concentrates on 2 interdisciplinary research teams with 20 members from the medicine and engineering sciences working jointly on digital health solutions.

Objective

The aim of this paper was to identify factors on the individual, team, and organizational levels that influence the implementation of interdisciplinary research projects elaborating on digital applications for medicine and, based on the results, to draw conclusions for the proactive design of the interdisciplinary research process to make these projects successful.

Methods

To achieve this aim, 2 interdisciplinary research teams were observed, and a small case study (response rate: 15/20, 75%) was conducted using a web-based questionnaire containing both closed and open self-report questions. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to analyze the quantitative data. The answers to the open-ended questions were subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Results

With regard to the interdisciplinary research projects investigated, the influencing factors of the three levels presented (individual, team, and organization) have proven to be relevant for interdisciplinary research cooperation.

Conclusions

With regard to recommendations for the future design of interdisciplinary cooperation, management aspects are addressed, that is, the installation of a coordinator, systematic definition of goals, required resources, and necessary efforts on the part of the involved interdisciplinary research partners. As only small groups were investigated, further research in this field is necessary to derive more general recommendations for interdisciplinary research teams.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00023909, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023909 ; German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00025077, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025077

Advancing Antiracism in Community-Based Research Practices in Early Childhood and Family Mental Health

Structural racism-the ways that institutional policies, practices, and other norms operate to create and sustain race-based inequities¹-has historically been foundational to the operations of academic medical centers and research institutions. Since its inception, academic medicine has depended on the exploitation of vulnerable communities to achieve medical, educational, and research goals.² Research practices have long ignored or taken advantage of the individuals purportedly benefiting from the research, a dynamic most manifestly true for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities in the United States. Reflecting current practices in racial justice work, we intentionally use the term "BIPOC" to highlight shared experiences within racially and ethnically minoritized communities, given the history of White supremacy in the United States. We acknowledge limitations of this term, which collapses myriad unique communities and histories into one construct. Specifically, child and adolescent psychiatry has historically been driven by Eurocentric approaches, paradigms, and methodology. These nonparticipatory dominant research practices have contributed to a lack of culturally responsive interventions for BIPOC communities, a paucity of evidence-based practices with demonstrated effectiveness within BIPOC communities, and disparities in access and quality of care.³ Mental health research involving BIPOC communities has been replete with exploitation and inequality.².

Organic Collaborative Research Partnership Building: Researchers, Needle and Syringe Program Providers, and People Who Inject Drugs

(1) Background: People who inject drugs (PWID) and needle and syringe program (NSP) providers increasingly partner with researchers to explore harm reduction best practice. However, a paucity of research exists regarding how best to engage PWID and community NSP providers to generate the evidence for sustainable harm reduction services. (2) Aim: This study reports on our use of an organic community research partnership-building approach between researchers, NSP providers, and PWID in Canberra ACT, Australia. (3) Method: Survey participants included both PWID (n = 70) and NSP providers (n = 26) across primary (n = 2), secondary (n = 7), and outreach (n = 1) services in Canberra ACT. Applying an organic partnership-building strategy, we engaged with partners and adapted approaches according to information gained in the process of implementation. (4) Results: We found engaging in relationship building around partner priority activities created mutual understanding and trust premised in authenticity of the evolving partnership. Our organic approach, which included a partner audit of the research tools for relevance, resulted in high acceptance and enrolment into the research by NSP providers and PWID. Finally, we observed strong social capital building utilizing an organic approach for the sustainability of the partnership. (5) Conclusions: The results of this study provide evidence for the benefits of organic collaborative research partnership building with NSP providers and PWID for authentic service program implementation. Our approach to research partnership building resulted in strong relationships built on shared goals and objectives, mutual gains, and complementary expertise. We propose the wider use of organic approaches to developing collaborative research partnerships with NSP providers and PWID to enhance consumer responsiveness towards service provision.

Human-centered implementation research: a new approach to develop and evaluate implementation strategies for strengthening referral networks for hypertension in western Kenya

Background

Human-centered design (HCD) is an increasingly recognized approach for engaging stakeholders and developing contextually appropriate health interventions. As a component of the ongoing STRENGTHS study (Strengthening Referral Networks for Management of Hypertension Across the Health System), we report on the process and outcomes of utilizing HCD to develop the implementation strategy prior to a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Methods

We organized a design team of 15 local stakeholders to participate in an HCD process to develop implementation strategies. We tested prototypes for acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility through focus group discussions (FGDs) with various community stakeholder groups and a pilot study among patients with hypertension. FGD transcripts underwent content analysis, and pilot study data were analyzed for referral completion and reported barriers to referral. Based on this community feedback, the design team iteratively updated the implementation strategy. During each round of updates, the design team reflected on their experience through FGDs and a Likert-scale survey.

Results

The design team developed an implementation strategy consisting of a combined peer navigator and a health information technology (HIT) package. Overall, community participants felt that the strategy was acceptable, appropriate, and feasible. During the pilot study, 93% of referrals were completed. FGD participants felt that the implementation strategy facilitated referral completion through active peer engagement; enhanced communication between clinicians, patients, and health administrators; and integrated referral data into clinical records. Challenges included referral barriers that were not directly addressed by the strategy (e.g. transportation costs) and implementation of the HIT package across multiple health record systems. The design team reflected that all members contributed significantly to the design process, but emphasized the need for more transparency in how input from study investigators was incorporated into design team discussions.

Conclusions

The adaptive process of co-creation, prototyping, community feedback, and iterative redesign aligned our implementation strategy with community stakeholder priorities. We propose a new framework of human-centered implementation research that promotes collaboration between community stakeholders, study investigators, and the design team to develop, implement, and evaluate HCD products for implementation research. Our experience provides a feasible and replicable approach for implementation research in other settings.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02501746, registration date: July 17, 2015,

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06930-2.

Advancing engagement and capacity for rural cancer control: a mixed-methods case study of a Community-Academic Advisory Board in the Appalachia region of Southwest Virginia

BACKGROUND

The objectives are to: 1) describe engagement processes used to prioritize and address regional comprehensive cancer control needs among a Community-Academic Advisory Board (CAB) in the medically-underserved, rural Appalachian region, and 2) detail longitudinal CAB evaluation findings.

METHODS

This three-year case study (2017-2020) used a convergent parallel, mixed-methods design. The approach was guided by community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles, the Comprehensive Participatory Planning and Evaluation process, and Nine Habits of Successful Comprehensive Cancer Control Coalitions. Meeting artifacts were tracked and evaluated. CAB members completed quantitative surveys at three time points and semi-structured interviews at two time points. Quantitative data were analyzed using analysis of variance tests. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed via an inductive-deductive process.

RESULTS

Through 13 meetings, Prevention and Early Detection Action Teams created causal models and prioritized four cancer control needs: human papillomavirus vaccination, tobacco control, colorectal cancer screening, and lung cancer screening. These sub-groups also began advancing into planning and intervention proposal development phases. As rated by 49 involved CAB members, all habits significantly improved from Time 1 to Time 2 (i.e., communication, priority work plans, roles/accountability, shared decision making, value-added collaboration, empowered leadership, diversified funding, trust, satisfaction; all p < .05), and most remained significantly higher at Time 3. CAB members also identified specific challenges (e.g., fully utilizing member expertise), strengths (e.g., diverse membership), and recommendations across habits.

CONCLUSION

This project's equity-based CBPR approach used a CPPE process in conjunction with internal evaluation of cancer coalition best practices to advance CAB efforts to address cancer disparities in rural Appalachia. This approach encouraged CAB buy-in and identified key strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities that will lay the foundation for continued involvement in cancer control projects. These engagement processes may serve as a template for similar coalitions in rural, underserved areas.

Community Engagement Practices at Research Centers in U.S. Minority Institutions: Priority Populations and Innovative Approaches to Advancing Health Disparities Research

This paper details U.S. Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Community Engagement Cores (CECs): (1) unique and cross-cutting components, focus areas, specific aims, and target populations; and (2) approaches utilized to build or sustain trust towards community participation in research. A mixed-method data collection approach was employed for this cross-sectional study of current or previously funded RCMIs. A total of 18 of the 25 institutions spanning 13 U.S. states and territories participated. CEC specific aims were to support community engaged research (94%); to translate and disseminate research findings (88%); to develop partnerships (82%); and to build capacity around community research (71%). Four open-ended questions, qualitative analysis, and comparison of the categories led to the emergence of two supporting themes: (1) establishing trust between the community-academic collaborators and within the community and (2) building collaborative relationships. An overarching theme, building community together through trust and meaningful collaborations, emerged from the supporting themes and subthemes. The RCMI institutions and their CECs serve as models to circumvent the historical and current challenges to research in communities disproportionately affected by health disparities. Lessons learned from these cores may help other institutions who want to build community trust in and capacities for research that addresses community-related health concerns.

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.

The Underutilization of Community-based Participatory Research in Psychology: A Systematic Review

Traditional non-participatory research methodologies have struggled to address the needs of multicultural populations in the United States (U.S.). Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a research paradigm offering a unique opportunity for culturally appropriate research and improving health equity. CBPR is an equitable, strength-based approach involving all stakeholders throughout the research process. We investigate the field of psychology's utilization of CBPR as an approach for working with multicultural populations to collaboratively address relevant and impactful research questions. A total of 1912 CBPR-related articles, from 2004 to 2014, were identified using PsycINFO, PubMed, and CINAHL Complete databases. Of these, approximately 16% (n = 311) met our criteria for psychology-related CBPR articles accounting for a negligible amount (<1%) of peer-reviewed publications in mainstream psychological journals during the same time period. Among U.S. psychology-related CBPR articles, 86% focused on multicultural and marginalized populations. Prominent topics of investigation included physical health, mental and behavioral health, and theoretical or methodological articles. Features of publications, including authors' training, types of journals, study populations, and topics under investigation, were explored for all 1912 publications. Findings highlight an opportunity for further utilization of CBPR within psychology, with key implications for health equity. Recommendations for increasing CBPR uptake within the discipline are also offered.

Practicing Hope: Enhancing Empowerment in Primary Health Care through Community-based Participatory Research

The World Health Organization's (WHO's) Declaration of Alma Ata in 1978 made Primary Health Care (PHC) the official health policy of all WHO member countries, stressing the importance of multisectoral collaboration and community empowerment as critical for delivering quality primary healthcare and public health services to achieve social justice and health equity. Over forty years later, a divide remains between seeing individual patients in the traditional biomedical model and addressing population-level social determinants of health. One promising approach for the intentional and active integration of multi-sectoral partnering practices and community empowerment into Primary Health Care is the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR). The power of CBPR lies in its systematic approach to facilitating equitable collaboration of partners based on community priorities and strengths and is increasingly recognized for improving health equity outcomes. This paper highlights the use of CBPR as a promising practice for healthcare organizations to bridge the gap between the traditional individual patient focus and the comprehensive primary healthcare approach from WHO. We use a narrative case study from A Ministry of Sharing (AMOS) Health and Hope, a PHC organization in Nicaragua, to illustrate the use of the CBPR model as an implementation framework that facilitated the transformation of structures, policies, and practices as AMOS created multi-sector partnerships and embraced community empowerment as part of its strategic and comprehensive approach to health equity.

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.

Harmonizing evidence-based practice, implementation context, and implementation strategies with user-centered design: a case example in young adult cancer care

BACKGROUND

Attempting to implement evidence-based practices in contexts for which they are not well suited may compromise their fidelity and effectiveness or burden users (e.g., patients, providers, healthcare organizations) with elaborate strategies intended to force implementation. To improve the fit between evidence-based practices and contexts, implementation science experts have called for methods for adapting evidence-based practices and contexts and tailoring implementation strategies; yet, methods for considering the dynamic interplay among evidence-based practices, contexts, and implementation strategies remain lacking. We argue that harmonizing the three can be facilitated by user-centered design, an iterative and highly stakeholder-engaged set of principles and methods.

METHODS

This paper presents a case example in which we used a three-phase user-centered design process to design and plan to implement a care coordination intervention for young adults with cancer. Specifically, we used usability testing to redesign and augment an existing patient-reported outcome measure that served as the basis for our intervention to optimize its usability and usefulness, ethnographic contextual inquiry to prepare the context (i.e., a comprehensive cancer center) to promote receptivity to implementation, and iterative prototyping workshops with a multidisciplinary design team to design the care coordination intervention and anticipate implementation strategies needed to enhance contextual fit.

RESULTS

Our user-centered design process resulted in the Young Adult Needs Assessment and Service Bridge (NA-SB), including a patient-reported outcome measure and a collection of referral pathways that are triggered by the needs young adults report, as well as implementation guidance. By ensuring NA-SB directly responded to features of users and context, we designed NA-SB for implementation, potentially minimizing the strategies needed to address misalignment that may have otherwise existed. Furthermore, we designed NA-SB for scale-up; by engaging users from other cancer programs across the country to identify points of contextual variation which would require flexibility in delivery, we created a tool intended to accommodate diverse contexts.

CONCLUSIONS

User-centered design can help maximize usability and usefulness when designing evidence-based practices, preparing contexts, and informing implementation strategies-in effect, harmonizing evidence-based practices, contexts, and implementation strategies to promote implementation and effectiveness.

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.

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.

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.

Dissemination of an American Indian Culturally Centered Community-Based Participatory Research Family Listening Program: Implications for Global Indigenous Well-Being

We introduce a culture-centered indigenous program called the Family Listening Program (FLP), which was developed through a long-standing community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership involving tribal research teams (TRTs) from three American Indian communities (Apache, Navajo, and Pueblo) with the University of New Mexico’s Center for Participatory Research (UNM-CPR). This paper provides background information on the TRT/UNM-CPR multi-generational FLP intervention funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and how it is poised to take the next steps of dissemination and implementation (D&I). In preparing for the next steps, the TRT/UNM-CPR team piloted two FLP dissemination activities, first at the state-level and then nationally; this paper describes these activities. Based on the learnings from the pilot dissemination, the TRT/UNM-CPR team developed an innovative D&I model by integrating a community-based participatory research culture-centered science (CBPR-CCS) approach with the Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) to examine the uptake, cultural acceptance, and sustainability of the FLP as an evidence-based indigenous family program.

Critical reflection for researcher-community partnership effectiveness: the He Pikinga Waiora process evaluation tool guiding the implementation of chronic condition interventions in Indigenous communities

Critically reflecting on researcher-community partnerships is a key component in implementing chronic condition interventions in Indigenous communities. This paper draws on the results and learnings from a process evaluation that measures how well two research-community partnerships have followed the He Pikinga Waiora (HPW) Implementation Framework while co-designing chronic condition interventions in primary care. The HPW framework is centred on Indigenous self-determination and knowledge surrounded by community engagement, cultural centredness, systems thinking and integrated knowledge translation. The evaluation included in-depth interviews and online surveys with 10 team members. The findings demonstrate that the HPW framework was followed well, with strengths particularly in community engagement and relationship building. Areas for improvement included systems thinking and integrated knowledge translation to support sustainability of the interventions. The need for partnerships to use process evaluation results to support critical reflection is asserted, which helps build strong trust and synergy, power sharing and effective and sustainable implementation practices. It is concluded that the HPW framework is well suited to evaluating implementation of health interventions in primary care as it assists in the facilitation of better collaboration between researchers and Indigenous communities, and encourages the implementation team to reflect on power and privilege.

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.

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.

The Community-Academic Aging Research Network: A Pipeline for Dissemination

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

The Community-Academic Aging Research Network (CAARN) was created to increase the capacity and effectiveness of Wisconsin's Aging Network and the University of Wisconsin to conduct community-based research related to aging. The purpose of this article is to describe CAARN's infrastructure, outcomes, and lessons learned.

DESIGN

Using principles of community-based participatory research, CAARN engages stakeholders to participate in the design, development, and testing of older adult health interventions that address community needs, are sustainable, and improve health equity.

SETTING

Academic healthcare and community organizations.

PARTICIPANTS

Researchers, community members, and community organizations.

INTERVENTION

CAARN matches academic and community partners to develop and test evidence-based programs to be distributed by a dissemination partner.

MEASUREMENTS

Number of partnerships and funding received.

RESULTS

CAARN has facilitated 33 projects since its inception in 2010 (30 including rural populations), involving 46 academic investigators, 52 Wisconsin counties, and 1 tribe. These projects have garnered 52 grants totaling $20 million in extramural and $3 million in intramural funding. Four proven interventions are being prepared for national dissemination by the Wisconsin Institute for Healthy Aging: one to improve physical activity; one to reduce bowel and bladder incontinence; one to reduce sedentary behavior; and one to reduce falls risk among Latinx older adults. Additionally, one intervention to improve balance using a modified tai chi program is being disseminated by another organization.

CONCLUSION

CAARN's innovative structure creates a pipeline to dissemination by designing for real-world settings through inclusion of stakeholders in the early stages of design and by packaging community-based health interventions for older adults so they can be disseminated after the research has been completed. These interventions provide opportunities for clinicians to engage with community organizations to improve the health of their patients through self-management. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1325-1333, 2020.

Implementation of a billable transitional care model for stroke patients: the COMPASS study

Background

The COMprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) pragmatic trial compared the effectiveness of comprehensive transitional care (COMPASS-TC) versus usual care among stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients discharged home from North Carolina hospitals. We evaluated implementation of COMPASS-TC in 20 hospitals randomized to the intervention using the RE-AIM framework.

Methods

We evaluated hospital-level Adoption of COMPASS-TC; patient Reach (meeting transitional care management requirements of timely telephone and face-to-face follow-up); Implementation using hospital quality measures (concurrent enrollment, two-day telephone follow-up, 14-day clinic visit scheduling); and hospital-level sustainability (Maintenance). Effectiveness compared 90-day physical function (Stroke Impact Scale-16), between patients receiving COMPASS-TC versus not. Associations between hospital and patient characteristics with Implementation and Reach measures were estimated with mixed logistic regression models.

Results

Adoption: Of 95 eligible hospitals, 41 (43%) participated in the trial. Of the 20 hospitals randomized to the intervention, 19 (95%) initiated COMPASS-TC.

Reach: A total of 24% (656/2751) of patients enrolled received a billable TC intervention, ranging from 6 to 66% across hospitals.

Implementation: Of eligible patients enrolled, 75.9% received two-day calls (or two attempts) and 77.5% were scheduled/offered clinic visits. Most completed visits (78% of 975) occurred within 14 days.

Effectiveness: Physical function was better among patients who attended a 14-day visit versus those who did not (adjusted mean difference: 3.84, 95% CI 1.42–6.27, p = 0.002).

Maintenance: Of the 19 adopting hospitals, 14 (74%) sustained COMPASS-TC.

Conclusions

COMPASS-TC implementation varied widely. The greatest challenge was reaching patients because of system difficulties maintaining consistent delivery of follow-up visits and patient preferences to pursue alternate post-acute care. Receiving COMPASS-TC was associated with better functional status.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02588664. Registered 28 October 2015.

Success in Long-Standing Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Partnerships: A Scoping Literature Review

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

Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review

INTRODUCTION

Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes.

METHODS

Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review.

RESULTS

We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue.

CONCLUSIONS

Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.

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.

Culture-centeredness in community-based participatory research: contributions to health education intervention research

Health education research emphasizes the importance of cultural understanding and fit to achieve meaningful psycho-social research outcomes, community responsiveness and external validity to enhance health equity. However, many interventions address cultural fit through cultural competence and sensitivity approaches that are often superficial. The purpose of this study was to better situate culture within health education by operationalizing and testing new measures of the deeply grounded culture-centered approach (CCA) within the context of community-based participatory research (CBPR). A nation-wide mixed method sample of 200 CBPR partnerships included a survey questionnaire and in-depth case studies. The questionnaire enabled the development of a CCA scale using concepts of community voice/agency, reflexivity and structural transformation. Higher-order confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated factorial validity of the scale. Correlations supported convergent validity with positive associations between the CCA and partnership processes and capacity and health outcomes. Qualitative data from two CBPR case studies provided complementary socio-cultural historic background and cultural knowledge, grounding health education interventions and research design in specific contexts and communities. The CCA scale and case study analysis demonstrate key tools that community-academic research partnerships can use to assess deeper levels of culture centeredness for health education research.

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.

Effect of a community-based participatory health literacy program on health behaviors and health empowerment among community-dwelling older adults: A quasi-experimental study

This study evaluated the effect of a community-based participatory health literacy program aimed at improving the health behaviors and health empowerment for older adults. A two-group pretest and posttest quasi-experimental design with surveys conducted at baseline (T₁), immediately after the intervention (T₂), and 6 months after the intervention (T₃). The intervention group (n = 94) attended a 12-week health literacy program; while the comparison group (n = 78) did not. The results demonstrated that intervention group had significantly better health behavior practices for weight control (OR = 3.71, 95% CI = 1.59-8.64), regular exercise (OR = 15.26, 95% CI = 1.92-121.13), and health information navigation (OR = 2.61, 95% CI = 1.16-5.84). Health empowerment was significantly higher in the intervention group than the comparison group (p < 0.01).This study suggests that integrating community-based participatory design is effective in improving some health behaviors and health empowerment in older adults over a short period.

Towards an assessment for organizational participatory research health partnerships: A systematic mixed studies review with framework synthesis

Within the health sciences, organizational participatory research (OPR) is defined as a blend of research and action, in which academic researchers partner with health organization members. OPR is based on a sound partnership between all stakeholders to improve organizational practices. However, little research on the evaluation of OPR health partnership exists. This systematic mixed studies review sought to produce a new theoretical model that structures the evaluation of the OPR processes and related outcomes of OPR health partnerships. Six bibliographic databases were searched together with grey literature sources for OPR health partnership evaluation questionnaires. Six questionnaires were included, from which a pool of 95 OPR health partnership evaluation items were derived. The included questionnaires were appraised for the quality of their origin, development and measurement properties. A framework synthesis was performed using an existing OPR framework by organizing questionnaire items in a matrix using a hybrid thematic analysis. This led to our proposed Organizational Participatory Research Evaluation Model (OPREM) that includes three axes, Trust, Collective Learning and Sustainability (with specific dimensions) and 95 items. This model provides information to help stakeholders comprehensively structure the evaluation of their partnerships and subsequent improvement; thus, potentially helping to improve health organization practices.

Community Experiences and Perceptions of Clinical and Translational Research and Researchers

BACKGROUND

Engaging communities in research is increasingly recognized as critical to translation of research into improved health outcomes. Our objective was to understand community stakeholders' perspectives on researchers, academic institutions, and how community is valued in research.

METHODS

A 45-item survey assessing experiences and perceptions of research (trust, community value, equity, researcher preparedness, and indicators of successful engagement) was distributed to 226 community members involved in health research with academic institutions.

RESULTS

Of the 109 respondents, 60% were racial/ethnic minorities and 78% were women, representing a range of community organizations, faith-based organizations, and public health agencies. Most (57%) reported current involvement with a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Only 25% viewed researchers as well-prepared to engage communities and few (13%) reported that resources were available and adequate to support community involvement. Most community stakeholders (66%) were compensated for their involvement in research, but only 40% perceived compensation to be appropriate. Trust of research and perceptions that researchers value community were more positive among those who perceived their compensation as appropriate (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate compensation and resources to support community involvement in research may improve perceptions of trust and value in academic-community partnerships. Strategies are needed to increase researcher preparedness to engage with communities.

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.

Improving Community Advisory Board Engagement in Precision Medicine Research to Reduce Health Disparities

Community Advisory Boards (CABs) are used in efforts to reduce health disparities; however, there is little documentation in the literature regarding their use in precision medicine research. In this case study, an academic-CAB partnership developed a questionnaire and patient educational materials for two precision smoking cessation interventions that involved use of genetic or genetically-informed information. The community-engaged research (CEnR) literature provided a framework for enhancing benefits to CAB members involved in developing research documents for use with a low-income, ethnically diverse population of smokers.The academic partners integrated three CEnR strategies: 1) in-meeting statements acknowledging their desire to learn from community partners, 2) in-meeting written feedback to and from community partners, and 3) a survey to obtain CAB member feedback post-meetings. Strategies 1 and 2 yielded modifications to pertinent study materials, as well as suggestions for improving meeting operations that were then adopted, as appropriate, by the academic partners. The survey indicated that CAB members valued the meeting procedure changes which appeared to have contributed to improvements in attendance and satisfaction with the meetings. Further operationalization of relevant partnership constructs and development of tools for measuring these aspects of community-academic partnerships is warranted to support community engagement in precision medicine research studies.

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.

Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: A systematic review of evaluation tools

BACKGROUND

Patient and public engagement is growing, but evaluative efforts remain limited. Reviews looking at evaluation tools for patient engagement in individual decision making do exist, but no similar articles in research and health systems have been published.

OBJECTIVE

Systematically review and appraise evaluation tools for patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making.

METHODS

We searched literature published between January 1980 and February 2016. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were consulted, as well as grey literature obtained through Google, subject-matter experts, social media and engagement organization websites. Two independent reviewers appraised the evaluation tools based on 4 assessment criteria: scientific rigour, patient and public perspective, comprehensiveness and usability.

RESULTS

In total, 10 663 unique references were identified, 27 were included. Most of these tools were developed in the last decade and were designed to support improvement of engagement activities. Only 11% of tools were explicitly based on a literature review, and just 7% were tested for reliability. Patients and members of the public were involved in designing 56% of the tools, mainly in the piloting stage, and 18.5% of tools were designed to report evaluation results to patients and the public.

CONCLUSION

A growing number of evaluation tools are available to support patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making. However, the scientific rigour with which such evaluation tools are developed could be improved, as well as the level of patient and public engagement in their design and reporting.

Searching for the Impact of Participation in Health and Health Research: Challenges and Methods

Internationally, the interest in involving patients and the public in designing and delivering health interventions and researching their effectiveness is increasing. Several systematic reviews of participation in health research have recently been completed, which note a number of challenges in documenting the impact of participation. Challenges include working across stakeholders with different understandings of participation and levels of experience in reviewing; comparing heterogeneous populations and contexts; configuring findings from often thin descriptions of participation in academic papers; and dealing with different definitions of impact. This paper aims to advance methods for systematically reviewing the impact of participation in health research, drawing on recent systematic review guidance. Practical examples for dealing with issues at each stage of a review are provided based on recent experience. Recommendations for improving primary research on participation in health are offered and key points to consider during the review are summarised.