Community action against asthma - Examining the partnership process of a community-based participatory research project
Community action against asthma - Examining the partnership process of a community-based participatory research project
复制标题
DOI：
10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20322.x
复制
发表时间：
2003-07-01
影响因子：
5.7
通讯作者：
Keeler, G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Parker, EA;Israel, BA;Keeler, G
背景技术背景：社区哮喘防治行动（CAAA）是一个以社区为基础的参与性研究（CBPR）项目，评估室外和室内空气质量对儿童哮喘恶化的影响，并测试家庭和社区一级的干预措施，以减少暴露于环境哮喘触发因素。社区组织的代表，学术界，综合卫生系统，和当地卫生部门的工作在合作伙伴关系的CAAA的指导委员会（SC）设计和实施project.OBJECTIVE：要进行一个过程评估的CAAA社区学术partnerships.DESIGN：在深度访谈中包含开放式的问题进行了SC成员。分析包括定性数据的既定方法，包括重点编码和持续比较方法。设置：密歇根州底特律的社区设置。参与者：CAAA SC的23名成员。测量：SC成员确定的共同主题与伙伴关系实现项目目标的能力以及伙伴关系本身面临的成功和挑战有关。成功实施一个复杂的项目，识别患有以前未确诊的哮喘的儿童，以及在SC决策中的多元化参与和社区影响。挑战包括确保所有合作伙伴在决策中的影响力，需要适应CBPR中“不同的做事方式”，所有合作伙伴都感受到的CBPR的限制和成本，不断需要沟通和保持信任，以及通过干预平衡科学和社区的需求。CBPR可以加强和促进基础研究，但必须注意信任问题、治理问题、组织文化和所有相关组织的参与成本。
BACKGROUND: Community Action Against Asthma (CAAA) is a community-based participatory research (CBPR) project that assesses the effects of outdoor and indoor air quality on exacerbation of asthma in children, and tests household- and neighborhood-level interventions to reduce exposure to environmental asthma triggers. Representatives of community-based organizations, academia, an integrated health system, and the local health department work in partnership on CAAA's Steering Committee (SC) to design and implement the project.OBJECTIVE: To conduct a process evaluation of the CAAA community-academic partnership.DESIGN: In-depth interviews containing open-ended questions were conducted with SC members. Analysis included established methods for qualitative data, including focused coding and constant comparison methods.SETTING: Community setting in Detroit, Michigan.PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-three members of the CAAA SC.MEASUREMENTS: Common themes identified by SC members relating to the partnership's ability to achieve project goals and the successes and challenges facing the partnership itself.MAIN RESULTS: Identified partnership accomplishments included: successful implementation of a complex project, identification of children with previously undiagnosed asthma, and diverse participation and community influence in SC decisions. Challenges included ensuring all partners' influence in decision-making, the need to adjust to "a different way of doing things" in CBPR, constraints and costs of doing CBPR felt by all partners, ongoing need for communication and maintaining trust, and balancing the needs of science and the community through intervention.CONCLUSIONS: CBPR can enhance and facilitate basic research, but care must be given to trust issues, governance issues, organizational culture, and costs of participation for all organizations involved.