Characteristics and Practices Within Research Partnerships for Health and Social Equity.
Characteristics and Practices Within Research Partnerships for Health and Social Equity.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/nnr.0000000000000399
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Wallerstein, Nina
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dickson, Elizabeth;Magarati, Maya;Boursaw, Blake;Oetzel, John;Devia, Carlos;Ortiz, Kasim;Wallerstein, Nina
由于联邦研究经费更多地集中在学术/社区合作，以解决卫生不公平问题，重要的是要了解这些伙伴关系的特点，以及他们如何工作，以实现健康公平的结果。这项研究建立在以前的国立卫生研究院资助的研究：（a）描述联邦资助的，基于社区的参与性研究（CBPR）或社区参与的研究（CEnR）项目的伙伴关系的特点和过程;（B）探索这些项目的资助阶段的特点;和（c）建立在以前的理解的伙伴关系有前途的做法。在2016年秋季至2017年春季期间，我们完成了对联邦资助的CBPR和CEnR项目的关键知情人的在线调查数据的横截面分析和主成分分析。179个项目的答复者（53%的答复率）描述了项目的特点（例如，伙伴的类型、伙伴关系的阶段和人口）和使用有希望的做法（例如，管理、咨询委员会的作用、培训专题）。项目涉及社区，医疗保健和政府合作伙伴，49%的受访者表示他们的项目处于早期资助阶段。更多的项目侧重于黑人/非洲裔美国人，而主要研究人员大多是白色。越是建立了伙伴关系（例如，多个项目），它越有可能采用有前途的管理实践（即，社区批准保障）、社区咨询委员会以及关于价值观和权力的培训。社区参与是一个发展过程，早期阶段和已建立的CBPR伙伴关系之间存在差异。积极反思和采用有前途的伙伴关系做法对于CBPR伙伴关系改善卫生公平性至关重要。本研究报告提供的数据为反思提供了关键指标。
As federal research funding focuses more on academic/community collaborations to address health inequities; it is important to understand characteristics of these partnerships and how they work to achieve health equity outcomes. This study built on previous National Institutes of Health–funded research to: (a) describe partnership characteristics and processes of federally funded, community-based participatory research (CBPR) or community-engaged research (CEnR) projects; (b) explore characteristics of these projects by stage of funding; and (c) build on previous understanding of partnership promising practices. Between fall 2016 and spring 2017, we completed a cross-sectional analysis and principal component analysis of online survey data from key informants of federally funded CBPR and CEnR projects. Respondents for 179 projects (53% response rate) described project characteristics (e.g., type of partner, stage of partnership, and population) and the use of promising practices (e.g., stewardship, advisory board roles, training topics) by stage of partnership. Projects involved community, healthcare, and government partners, with 49% of respondents reporting their project was in the early stage of funding. More projects focused on Black/African-American populations, while principal investigators were mostly White. The more established a partnership (e.g., with multiple projects), the more likely it employed the promising practices of stewardship (i.e., community safeguards for approval), community advisory boards, and training on values and power. Community engagement is a developmental process with differences between early-stage and established CBPR partnerships. Engaging in active reflection and adopting promising partnering practices are important for CBPR partnerships working to improve health equity. The data provided in this study provide key indicators for reflection.