Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory Research

Plumbline Coaching and Consulting, Inc.
Progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action 01/2008; 2(2):85-6, 87-97. DOI: 10.1353/cpr.0.0020
Source: PubMed


The California Breast Cancer Research Program (CBCRP) Community Research Collaboration (CRC) Awards fund research projects conducted by partnerships between community members and academically trained research scientists.
We sought to determine the relationship, if any, between the collaborative process of conducting the CRC projects and reported outcomes.
Community and academic researchers from the first seven CRC full award projects were interviewed in one-on-one, standardized, semistructured telephone interviews. Twelve of thirteen eligible community partners and all nine eligible academic partners were interviewed (some teams had multiple community or academic partners). Interview questions covered four major types of outcomes (improved methodology [four items], benefited community [sixitems], benefited researchers [three items], or influenced health services and policy [five items]) and three major aspects of the partnership (collaboration among partners [three items], group dynamics [five items], and community involvement [two items]). Process and outcome scores for each team were compared using a scatter plot graph.
Teams were most effective at improving the quality of research methodology, providing benefits to the participating community agency, and answering questions important to the communities involved. Areas of difficulty for the teams included collaborative data analysis, power sharing, and managing the impact of turnover. Although the projects varied in the measures of the partnership process, the three teams that had the highest outcome scores also had the highest scores for the partnership process.
Although the relationship between process and outcomes is not necessarily causal, these results suggest an association worthy of further investigation.

2 Reads
  • Source
    • "The development of relationships among researcher and community is challenging but of critical importance for those who have typically been excluded from research studies or those who suffer from culturally-based health disparities (Boyer et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2006; Plumb et al., 2008; Wells et al., 2006). Individuals in these socio-economically disadvantaged populations will not benefit from the advances in health research unless their genotypes and cultural environments are included in biomedical research studies. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Personal and public health information are often obtained from studies of large population groups. Risk factors for nutrients, toxins, genetic variation, and more recently, nutrient-gene interactions are statistical estimates of the percentage reduction in disease in the population if the risk were to be avoided or the gene variant were not present. Because individuals differ in genetic makeup, lifestyle, and dietary patterns than those individuals in the study population, these risk factors are valuable guidelines, but may not apply to individuals. Intervention studies are likewise limited by small sample sizes, short time frames to assess physiological changes, and variable experimental designs that often preclude comparative or consensus analyses. A fundamental challenge for nutrigenomics will be to develop a means to sort individuals into metabolic groups, and eventually, develop risk factors for individuals. To reach the goal of personalizing medicine and nutrition, new experimental strategies are needed for human study designs. A promising approach for more complete analyses of the interaction of genetic makeups and environment relies on community-based participatory research (CBPR) methodologies. CBPR's central focus is developing a partnership among researchers and individuals in a community that allows for more in depth lifestyle analyses but also translational research that simultaneously helps improve the health of individuals and communities. The USDA-ARS Delta Nutrition Intervention Research program exemplifies CBPR providing a foundation for expanded personalized nutrition and medicine research for communities and individuals.
    Omics: a journal of integrative biology 01/2009; 12(4):263-72. DOI:10.1089/omi.2008.0041 · 2.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: ow do we combine the knowledge and wisdom in communities and in academic institutions to solve the major health, social and economic challenges facing our society? How do we ensure that community-driven social change is central to service-learning and community-based participatory research (CBPR)? Answering these critical questions was the central purpose of the Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH) 10th anniversary conference and the special section of conference papers appearing in this issue. The conference, "Mobilizing Partnerships for Social Change," sought to nurture a growing network of community-campus partnerships that are striving to achieve the systems and policy changes needed to address the root causes of health, social and economic inequalities. The conference convened a diverse group of over 650 CCPH members from 40 states and the District of Columbia in the United States, 10 provinces in Canada, the Central African Republic, Germany, Ghana, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, Norway, South Africa, Sudan, Uganda and the United Kingdom for four days of skill-building, networking, and agenda-setting. Generous scholarship support from conference cosponsors contributed to an equitable mix of participants from community and institutional settings, with an especially strong contingent from Aboriginal and Indigenous communities. As CCPH's first conference in Canada, participants were able to learn from Canadian experiences with community-campus partnerships and the social determinants of health, and to explore synergies across North America and beyond. Further, holding the conference in one of the most diverse cities in the world enabled participants to explore critical issues of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, wealth and culture. Through plenary presentations, interactive workshops, story-telling sessions, posters, exhibits and community site visits, the conference sought to build knowledge, skills and actions for achieving healthy and just societies.
    Progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action 01/2008; 2(2):81-2. DOI:10.1353/cpr.0.0012
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Community-Based Participatory Research(CBPR) has gained attention as a public health approach to develop community health interventions to address health disparities in recognition of the community relevance of specific health issues associated with social determinants of health. It emphasizes community involvement in equal partnership with researchers and public health professionals to address community-identified needs. The characteristics and principles of CBPR discussed in this paper highlight participatory nature, capacity development, partnership building, and process-orientation of CBPR. A 6-step process model for community empowerment is then introduced as a CBPR operationalization strategy. Mixed methods research approaches are valuable in CBPR as well as process evaluation. For the application of CBPR in Korean contexts, the Diffusion of Innovation theory is suggested as a theoretical framework for implementation. Building public health partnerships between public and private sectors to create partnership synergy is a necessary condition for successful CBPR for health promotion in Korea. Accompanying critical factors for the CBPR application include: common understanding of CBPR and its values, establishment of the definition of 'community,' 'community-based' and 'participation' in community health, development of accommodating research infrastructure for CBPR, recognition of the importance of program evaluation (particularly process evaluation), and training CBPR specialists.
    01/2009; 26(1).
Show more