ADMINISTRATIVE CORE

行政核心

• 批准号: 9369092
• 负责人: Marjorie K. Leimomi Mala Mau
• 金额: $ 42.97万
• 依托单位: UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 2015
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2015-11-01 至 2017-10-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9369092
• 关键词: Address; Administrative Efficiency; Awareness; Behavior; Collaborations; Communities; Complex; Diabetes Mellitus; Disease; Evidence based treatment; Funding; Goals; Guidelines; Hawaiian population; Health; Health Status; Heart Diseases; Lead; Life Style; Liquid substance; Minority; Modeling; Morbidity - disease rate; Movement; Obesity; Pacific Island Americans; Participant; Policies; Population; Process; Public Health; Relationship-Building; Research; Research Activity; Research Personnel; Research Project Grants; Resources; Role; Science; Scientific Advances and Accomplishments; Socioeconomic Factors; Time; Translations; Trust; United States National Institutes of Health; Work; clinical practice; community based participatory research; community organizations; design; ethnic minority population; experience; handbook; health difference; health disparity; health equity; health science research; high risk; improved; innovation; member; mortality; novel strategies; programs; racial minority; research study; success; trend; willingness

Despite decades of programs and policies to eliminate unjust health differences in the US, there remain significant disparities in health status among racial and ethnic minority populations. Among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, cardiometabolic disorders such as heart disease, diabetes and obesity, remains a complex and pervasive problem that is strongly associated with lifestyle behaviors, environmental influences and socioeconomic factors.(1-3) Among minority populations such as Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and other high-risk populations, this context poses both challenges and opportunities for confronting cardiometabolic health disparities and reversing these trends. Recently there has been a growing movement towards participatory research as a means to build trust and to disseminate evidence based treatments into clinical practice. The rapidly evolving concept of participatory research, often referred to as community based participatory research (CBPR) is gaining momentum as an important feature of public funded health sciences research.(4-6) However, the degree of involvement of community partners varies considerably and the concepts of what CBPR is and how it relates to the research enterprise remains fluid and continually evolving.(7) In our Center for Native and Pacific Health Disparities Research (CNPHDR), we have worked collaboratively with many grassroots community organizations and have developed guidelines and processes that have worked well to advance the scientific agenda while sustaining and building trust in our multiple partnerships.(8, 9) Our 9 years of experience in the Center has resulted in a broad array of contexts in which our community partners are involved to varying degrees.(10) For example, our general approach to working with communities for the first time is to allow the community to first identify the level of involvement they are willing and able to participate in. A discussion ensues about the specifics of a research project as it relates to both parties weighing the benefit and burden of working together to conduct scientific research. In other words, it is the community organization that decides how they want to be involved and it is the responsibility of the PI to discuss with the community whether that role/involvement is consistent with the aims and purpose of the research study. In general, our Center has effectively used this process of relationship building and discussion over the last 9+ years and it has been very valuable in working openly with our community partners in Center-related research projects. In fact, a rich resource for how to adapt this approach has been described in a handbook authored by two of our community partners.(11) Yet, there remain research studies undertaken today by investigators in which there is a lack of awareness or willingness to include community members as active participants of the research enterprise rather than just subjects within research studies.(12, 13) Criticisms of CBPR as a valid approach to solving some of the most persistent health disparity problems remain unresolved. However, the field of CBPR and its application to health disparities research remains a viable approach with potential for not only advancing scientific discovery but also for the translation of science to benefit the public's health, which is one of the long term goals of NIH funded research.

尽管美国几十年来制定了消除不公平健康差异的计划和政策， 少数种族和族裔人口之间的健康状况存在显著差异。在主要原因中， 尽管发病率和死亡率都很高，但心脏病、糖尿病和肥胖症等心脏代谢疾病仍然是 与生活方式行为、环境影响、 和社会经济因素。(1-3)在夏威夷原住民、太平洋岛民等少数民族中， 对于其他高风险人群，这一背景既带来了挑战，也带来了机遇。 心脏代谢健康差异和扭转这些趋势。最近有一个越来越大的运动 将参与性研究作为建立信任和传播循证治疗方法的手段 临床实践参与式研究的概念正在迅速发展，通常被称为基于社区的研究。 参与式研究（CBPR）作为公共资助的健康科学的一个重要特征正在获得发展势头 research. (4-6)然而，社区伙伴的参与程度差别很大， CBPR是什么以及它与研究企业的关系的概念仍然是流动的， 进化（七） 在我们的土著和太平洋地区健康差异研究中心（CNPHDR），我们一直致力于 与许多基层社区组织合作，并制定了指导方针和流程 这些工作在推进科学议程的同时， 伙伴关系。（8，9）我们在中心的9年经验产生了广泛的背景，其中 我们的社区伙伴在不同程度上参与其中。（十） 例如，我们第一次与社区合作的一般方法是让社区 首先确定他们愿意和能够参与的参与程度。关于…的讨论 研究项目的细节，因为它涉及到双方权衡工作的利益和负担， 一起进行科学研究。换句话说，是社区组织决定他们希望如何参与，PI有责任与社区讨论， 角色/参与与研究的目标和目的一致。总的来说，我们的中心有 在过去的9年多里，我们有效地利用了这种建立关系和讨论的过程， 在与中心相关的研究项目中与我们的社区合作伙伴公开合作的价值。事实上， 我们社区的两位成员撰写的手册中描述了如何调整这种方法的资源 伙伴（十一） 然而，今天仍有调查人员进行的调查研究缺乏认识， 或愿意包括社区成员作为研究企业的积极参与者，而不仅仅是 研究中的对象。(12，13）批评CBPR作为解决一些最重要问题的有效方法 长期存在的健康差距问题仍未得到解决。然而，CBPR领域及其在 健康差异研究仍然是一种可行的方法，不仅有可能促进科学发现， 同时也是为了科学的转化，以造福公众的健康，这是NIH的长期目标之一， 资助的研究。