Background. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is increasingly used by community and academic partners to examine health inequities and promote health equity in communities. Despite increasing numbers of CBPR partnerships, there is a lack of consensus in the field regarding what defines partnership success and how to measure factors contributing to success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Aims. To identify indicators and measures of success in long-standing CBPR partnerships as part of a larger study whose aim is to develop and validate an instrument measuring success across CBPR partnerships. Methods. The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided searches of three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) for articles published between 2007 and 2017 and evaluating success in CBPR partnerships existing longer than 4 years. Results. Twenty-six articles met search criteria. We identified 3 key domains and 7 subdomains with 28 underlying indicators of success. Six partnerships developed or used instruments to measure their success; only one included reliability or validity data. Discussion. CBPR partnerships reported numerous intersecting partner, partnership, and outcome indicators important for success. These results, along with data from key informant interviews with community and academic partners and advisement from a national panel of CBPR experts, will inform development of items for an instrument measuring CBPR partnership success. Conclusion. The development of a validated instrument measuring indicators of success will allow long-standing CBPR partnerships to evaluate their work toward achieving health equity and provide a tool for newly forming CBPR partnerships aiming to achieve long-term success.

Success in Long-Standing Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Partnerships: A Scoping Literature Review:

Landscapes for play: Effects of an intervention to promote nature-based risky play in early childhood centres

Policy Points Community-engaged research (CEnR) engenders meaningful academic-community partnerships to improve research quality and health outcomes. CEnR has increasingly been adopted by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to intractable problems. It has been difficult to systematically measure CEnR's impact, as most evaluations focus on project-specific outcomes. Similarly, partners have struggled with identifying appropriate measures to assess outcomes of interest. To make a case for CEnR's value, we must demonstrate the impacts of CEnR over time. We compiled recent measures and developed an interactive data visualization to facilitate more consistent measurement of CEnR's theoretical domains. Context Community-engaged research (CEnR) aims to engender meaningful academic-community partnerships to increase research quality and impact, improve individual and community health, and build capacity for uptake of evidence-based practices. Given the urgency to solve society's pressing public health problems and increasing competition for funding, it is important to demonstrate CEnR's value. Most evaluations focus on project-specific outcomes, making it difficult to demonstrate CEnR's broader impact. Moreover, it is challenging for partnerships to identify assessments of interest beyond process measures. We conducted a mapping review to help partnerships find and select measures to evaluate CEnR projects and to characterize areas where further development of measures is needed. Methods We searched electronic bibliographic databases using relevant search terms from 2009 to 2018 and scanned CEnR projects to identify unpublished measures. Through review and reduction, we found 69 measures of CEnR's context, process, or outcomes that are potentially generalizable beyond a specific health condition or population. We abstracted data from descriptions of each measure to catalog purpose, aim (context, process, or outcome), and specific domains being measured. Findings We identified 28 measures of the conditions under which CEnR is conducted and factors to support effective academic-community collaboration (context); 43 measures evaluating constructs such as group dynamics and trust (process); and 43 measures of impacts such as benefits and challenges of CEnR participation and system and capacity changes (outcomes). Conclusions We found substantial variation in how academic-community partnerships conceptualize and define even similar domains. Achieving more consistency in how partnerships evaluate key constructs could reduce measurement confusion apparent in the literature. A hybrid approach whereby partnerships discuss common metrics and develop locally important measures can address CEnR's multiple goals. Our accessible data visualization serves as a convenient resource to support partnerships' evaluation goals and may help to build the evidence base for CEnR through the use of common measures across studies.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/1468-0009.12458

Measuring Community‐Engaged Research Contexts, Processes, and Outcomes: A Mapping Review

Community-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who identified and rated the importance of different antecedents of trust on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Study participants were community members ( n = 66), health care providers ( n = 38), and academic researchers ( n = 44). All stakeholder groups rated "authentic communication" and "reciprocal relationships" the highest in importance. Community members rated "communication/methodology to resolve problems" ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) significantly higher than academic researchers ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.67) and health care providers ( M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; p < .01) and had different perspectives regarding the importance of issues related to "sustainability." The importance of communication and relationships across stakeholders indicates the importance of colearning processes that involve the exchange of knowledge and skills. The differences uncovered suggest specific areas where attention and skill building may be needed to improve trust within partnerships. More research on how partnerships can improve communication specific to problem solving and sustainability is merited.

/pdf/stakeholder-perspectives-on-creating-and-maintaining-trust-2blr8ht1pk.pdf

Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community–Academic Research Partnerships

This chapter focuses on the transformation of population-based data and data systems into social resources that actively contribute to social, economic and political solutions to reduce health inequities. Our first underlying premise is that current systems of population health data collection, management, analysis and use are too often disconnected from the communities being described and whose data are being collected. Our second and related premise is that, in order for data to become a tool for social empowerment and social change, the social structuring of data governance and management must change from systems that reinforce social exclusion by marginalizing communities from their data to systems in which communities are fully and centrally involved in data decision making. The first part of this chapter rationalizes these premises by providing examples of the ways in which existing data systems undermine the broader mission of social epidemiology to identify effective interventions that alleviate conditions of social marginalization and poverty. The remainder of the chapter focuses on strategies for transformation in health and social data and data systems.

Population-Based Data and Community Empowerment

A process evaluation of a consortium of academic researchers and community-based service providers focused on the health and well-being of children and families provides empirical and practice-based evidence of those factors important for community-based participatory research (CBPR). This study draws on quantitative ratings of 33 factors associated with CBPR as well as open-ended questions addressing the benefits, facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for collaboration. Eight distinct but related studies are represented by 10 academic and 9 community researchers. Even though contextual considerations were identified between the academic and community partners, in large part because of their focus, organizational mandate and particular expertise, key factors for facilitating collaboration were found across groups. Both community and academic partners reported the following as very important for positive collaborations: trust and mutual respect; adequate time; shared commitment, decision making, and goals; a memorandum of understanding or partnership agreement; clear communication; involvement of community partners in the interpretation of the data and information dissemination; and regular meetings. The results are compared to current models of collaboration across different contexts and highlight factors important for CBPR with community service providers.

Evaluation of a Community-Based Participatory Research Consortium From the Perspective of Academics and Community Service Providers Focused on Child Health and Well-Being

New Approaches to Early Child Development

Theory and background to the CHILD Project Rules, Rituals and Realities: From Theory to Practice What We Have Learned About Poverty and Vulnerability What We Have Learned About Aboriginal Children and Families What We Have Learned About Early Identification and Screening Programs What We Have Learned About Nurturant Environments for Children What We Have Learned About Interdisciplinarity What We Have Learned About University-Community Collaboration The Graduate Student Experience Conclusions and New Beginnings

New approaches to early child development : rules, rituals, and realities

In the third year of the CHILD Project, Jayne Pivik, a Postdoctoral Fellow, joined the CHILD Central Team. One of her studies was an evaluation of the collaborative efforts between the academic and community-based research partners, which took place in the fourth year of the CHILD Project. From the beginning, the CHILD Project strove to achieve high levels of collaboration and cooperation. The original grant proposal was written in collaboration with First Call, a province-wide child and youth advocacy organization that consisted of approximately 90 different agencies. Community partners also participated on the CHILD Executive Committee and in all report-writing (i.e., Milestone Reports, CHILDTalk Reports, Cluster Reports), presentations (CHILD Learning Forums), and on the CHILD Executive Committee.

Lessons in University-Community Collaboration

The Consortium for Health, Intervention, Learning and Development (CHILD) Project was a longitudinal program of research on early child development based in British Columbia (BC), Canada, from 2003 to 2008. It drew together a wide range of university-based biomedical and social scientists, community-based professionals, and government officials and policymakers. During the five years of data collection and the subsequent period of data analysis and interpreta-tion, the CHILD Project examined the interaction and impacts of biological and social influences on early child development. Some of the studies focused on marginalized or disadvantaged popula-tions and others focused more on universal programs of research that considered the needs of all children. As part of this program of research, the CHILD Project examined the benefits and challenges of interdisciplinary inquiry by weaving together the ontologies, epistemologies, and methodologies of different disciplines (Shonkoff, 2000) and by including community professionals as research partners in the ten collaborative research studies under the CHILD umbrella. In this way, the CHILD Project became a community of discourse of community-based professionals, university researchers, and graduate students in order to ensure that the research questions, methods, and outcomes of the ten studies were relevant to children and families.

Collaborative Play as New Methodology: Co-constructing Knowledge of Early Child Development in the CHILD Project in British Columbia, Canada

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Jayne Pivik

Author Tools

Chat about Author