Walk together children with no wasted steps: community-academic partnering for equal power in NIH proposal development.
Walk together children with no wasted steps: community-academic partnering for equal power in NIH proposal development.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1353/cpr.2010.0013
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Hargraves, Martha A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Williams, Karen Jaynes;Cooks, John Mark;Hargraves, Martha A
背景技术背景：基于社区的参与性研究（CBPR）方法公平地让社区成员和研究人员参与整个研究过程。一个发展中的文献探讨了CBPR伙伴关系中的问题，但关于社区团体使用CBPR来访问大学资源以解决社区优先的健康问题的文章较少。OBJECTIVE：我们试图研究美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）资助的CBPR伙伴关系的两个阶段中的问题：（1）联合提案准备，（2）赠款管理。我们使用了案例研究的方法来分析数据（合作伙伴对话，会议记录，采访和新闻报道）从一个长期的社区，学术partnerships.RESULTS：合作伙伴关系获得了美国国立卫生研究院合作伙伴研究计划的资金。在联合提案准备过程中，问题包括：（1）学习实践操作原则，如“以所有人都能理解的方式说话”，（2）简化提案设计，以促进与社区成员的沟通，以及（3）解决社区-学术预算共享中固有的不公平问题。在管理阶段，问题包括（1）社区合作伙伴的斗争与行政要求，（2）在间接成本（IDC）分配的不公平，和（3）自然灾害的影响。结论：单独资助CBPR赠款可以促进社区合作伙伴的发展，但对小，基层社区组织提出实质性要求。资助者应考虑在开发社区资源和基础设施方面承担更多责任，以确保基层社区团体有能力成为平等的伙伴。应更准确地核算CBPR对弱势社区的成本和收益，以确保社区在与大学合作方面投入的时间获得足够的回报。
BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches equitably involve community members and researchers throughout the research process. A developing literature examines problems in CBPR partnerships, but less is written about community groups using CBPR to access university resources to address community-prioritized health concerns.OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine issues in two stages of a National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded CBPR partnership: (1) joint proposal preparation, and (2) grant administration.METHODS: We used a case study approach to analyze data (partner dialogs, meeting notes, interviews, and press coverage) from a longstanding community-academic partnership.RESULTS: The partnership received NIH Partners in Research Program funding. During joint proposal preparation, issues included (1) learning to practice operating principles, such as "talking in ways that all people can understand," (2) streamlining proposal design to facilitate communication with community members, and (3) addressing inequities inherent in community-academic budget sharing. During the administration phase, issues included (1) community partner struggles with administrative requirements, (2) inequities in indirect cost (IDC) allocations, and (3) the impact of a natural disaster.CONCLUSION: Separately funded CBPR grants can contribute to community partner development, but make substantive demands on small, grassroots community organizations. Funders should consider taking more responsibility in developing community resources and infrastructure to ensure that grassroots community groups have the power to be equal partners. More accurate accounting of costs and benefits of CBPR to vulnerable communities should be in place to ensure communities receive adequate return on the time they invest in partnering with universities.