NIH-Funded CBPR: Self-Reported Community Partner and Investigator Perspectives
NIH-Funded CBPR: Self-Reported Community Partner and Investigator Perspectives
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10900-019-00661-6
复制
发表时间：
2019-08-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Morris, Kathryn A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Elwood, William N.;Corrigan, James G.;Morris, Kathryn A.
在过去20年中，基于社区的卫生环境参与性研究（CBPR）方法已大大成熟。虽然对CBPR干预措施的发展和有效性的文献贡献有所增加，但关于实际社区研究伙伴关系的功能和评估的出版物数量却没有跟上。为了帮助解决这一差距，我们检索了美国国立卫生研究院的档案数据，并确定了一组489个CBPR项目，包括合作建设、探索性/试点、研究和项目项目资助。我们发现资助记录中通常缺少社区合作伙伴的联系信息，并联系了主要研究者（pi）以获取社区合作伙伴的联系信息。随后，我们建立在既定措施的基础上，询问主要研究者和社区合作伙伴对参与nih资助的CBPR项目的看法。许多主要研究人员和社区合作伙伴报告了学术界和社区组织之间以及社区组织之间的现有合作。合作伙伴倾向于就完成项目所需资金水平的适当性以及社区合作伙伴招募和留住参与者、收集数据和实施干预措施的能力达成一致。合作伙伴对参与研究设计、数据分析、手稿和演示制作以及结果传播的看法存在差异。建议包括在没有过度负担的情况下收集主要社区合作伙伴信息，增加标准教育，并让社区组织参与研究词汇和实践。
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.