Evaluation of a partnership approach to translating research on breast cancer and the environment.
Evaluation of a partnership approach to translating research on breast cancer and the environment.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1353/cpr.0.0081
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hiatt R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Van Olphen J;Ottoson J;Green L;Barlow J;Koblick K;Hiatt R
越来越多的关于基于社区的参与式研究（CBPR）的文献表明，参与式方法在许多重要方面有利于科学。然而，对 CBPR 方法本身的正式评估很少，也很少有标准制定来协助此类工作。该评估使用 Green 及其同事制定的 CBPR 指南来评估湾区乳腺癌社区外展和翻译核心 (COTC) 和环境研究中心 (BABCERC) 在将两个关键项目的科学发现向公众转化方面的参与性方法。为了评估主要利益相关者对项目与指南之间一致性的看法，四名 COTC 成员、四名研究人员和四名社区成员根据 26 项指南中的每一项对项目进行了评分。这些数据与对相同参与者和由一部分参与者组成的焦点小组的访谈记录进行了三角测量。 COTC 的参与式方法带来了许多重要的好处，包括改善不同利益相关者之间的关系、产生知识、提高研究的敏感性和适当性，以及增加社区对研究的支持。然而，这种合作的几个非典型特征——例如，正在进行的科学的基本和病因学性质，以及涉及的多个社区（外行和活动家/倡导者）——导致利益相关者之间的参与水平和质量不同。进一步的研究应侧重于针对不同类型的社区合作伙伴调整参与式研究原则，以及开发和完善标准和工具，以协助评估参与式研究的过程和结果。
The growing literature on community-based participatory research (CBPR) suggests that a participatory approach benefits science in important ways. However there have been few formal evaluations of a CBPR approach itself, and few standards developed to assist in such efforts. This evaluation used CBPR guidelines developed by Green and colleagues to evaluate the participatory approach of the Community Outreach and Translation Core (COTC) of the Bay Area Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Center (BABCERC) in translating scientific findings from two key projects to the public. To assess key stakeholders’ perceptions of alignment between the projects and the guidelines, four COTC members, four researchers, and four community members rated the projects on each of the 26 guidelines. These data were triangulated with transcripts from interviews with the same participants and a focus group with a subset of the participants. The participatory approach by the COTC resulted in many important benefits including improved relationships among diverse stakeholders, knowledge generation, increased sensitivity and propriety of the research, and increased community support of research. However, several atypical features of this collaboration—for example, the basic and etiological nature of the science being undertaken, and the multiple communities (lay and activist/advocate) involved—resulted in different levels and qualities of participation among stakeholders. Further research should focus on the adaptation of participatory research principles for different kinds of community partners and on the development and refinement of standards and tools to assist in evaluating the process and outcome of participatory research.