The Power and the Promise: Working With Communities to Analyze Data, Interpret Findings, and Get to Outcomes

Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, A3-150 Benedict Bldg, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.55). 09/2008; 98(8):1407-17. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.113571
Source: PubMed


Although the intent of community-based participatory research (CBPR) is to include community voices in all phases of a research initiative, community partners appear less frequently engaged in data analysis and interpretation than in other research phases. Using 4 brief case studies, each with a different data collection methodology, we provide examples of how community members participated in data analysis, interpretation, or both, thereby strengthening community capacity and providing unique insight. The roles and skills of the community and academic partners were different from but complementary to each other. We suggest that including community partners in data analysis and interpretation, while lengthening project time, enriches insights and findings and consequently should be a focus of the next generation of CBPR initiatives.

Download full-text


Available from: Scott D Rhodes
  • Source
    • "Provider–researcher partnership helps generate findings that are more applicable to practice than researcher-driven approaches (Cashman et al., 2008; Green, 2010; Israel et al., 1998; Pinto, McKay, & Escobar, 2008). Thus, starting in 2006-2007, we used CBPR principles to develop a diverse partnership network, the Implementation Community Collaborative Board (ICCB), including researchers, service consumers, and providers. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Partnerships between HIV researchers and service providers are essential for reducing the gap between research and practice. Community-Based Participatory Research principles guided this cross-sectional study, combining 40 in-depth interviews with surveys of 141 providers in 24 social service agencies in New York City. We generated the Provider-Researcher Partnership Model to account for provider- and agency-level factors' influence on intentions to form partnerships with researchers. Providers preferred "balanced partnerships" in which researchers and providers allocated research tasks and procedures to reflect diverse knowledge/skill sets. An organizational culture that values research can help enhance providers' intentions to partner. Providers' intentions and priorities found in this study may encourage researchers to engage in and policy makers to fund collaborative research.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2014 · Journal of Mixed Methods Research
  • Source
    • "Politically, public involvement provides a voice for 33 disadvantaged social groups (Beresford, 2005; Boote et al., 2010) as well as a more democratic 34 decision-making process with greater accountability (Florin and Dixon, 2004). Furthermore, 35 public involvement can increase the relevance, appropriateness and quality of health and 36 social care research (Cotterell, 2007; Cashman et al., 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Priorities for public health innovations are typically not considered equally by all members of the public. When faced with a choice between various innovation options, it is, therefore, possible that some respondents eliminate and/or select innovations based on certain characteristics. This paper proposes a flexible method for exploring and accommodating situations where respondents exhibit such behaviours, whilst addressing preference heterogeneity. We present an empirical case study on the public's preferences for health service innovations. We show that allowing for elimination-by-aspects and/or selection-by-aspects behavioural rules leads to substantial improvements in model fit and, importantly, has implications for willingness to pay estimates and scenario analysis.
    Full-text · Article · Jul 2014 · Journal of Health Economics
  • Source
    • "The bi-national CBPR partnership This study was conducted by a bi-national CBPR partnership comprised of lay community members , including Guatemalan gay men and immigrant Latino gay and bisexual men living in the USA, and organizational representatives, business owners and academic researchers from both Guatemala and North Carolina. Blending the lived experiences of community members; the experiences of organizational representatives based in ongoing service provision; and sound science have the potential to develop more informed understandings of health-related phenomena and thus produce interventions that are more relevant, more culturally congruent, more likely to be adopted and maintained over time and more likely to be successful (Israel et al., 1998; Eng et al., 2005; Cashman et al., 2008; Wallerstein et al., 2008; Rhodes et al., 2010, 2011a, 2013b; Rhodes, 2012). Similarly, study designs that are informed by multiple perspectives may be more authentic to the community and its members' natural ways of doing things. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Guatemalan gay and bisexual men, men who have sex with men (MSM), and transgender persons carry disproportionate burden of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections compared with other Guatemalan subgroups. However, little is known about the determinants of sexual health to inform health promotion and disease prevention interventions among these sexual minorities. We sought to explore sexual health and HIV risk among Guatemalan sexual minorities, using a community-based participatory research approach. We conducted 8 focus groups (n = 87 participants total) and 10 individual in-depth interviews with gay and bisexual men, MSM, and transgender persons. Using constant comparison, an approach to grounded theory, we analyzed verbatim transcripts and identified 24 themes that we organized into five ecological factors influencing sexual health: intrapersonal (e.g. misconceptions about HIV transmission, low perceived susceptibility and lack of condoms use skills); interpersonal (e.g. family rejection and condom use as a barrier to intimacy); community (e.g. discrimination and stigma); institutional (e.g. limited access to health promotion resources); and public policy (e.g. perceived lack of provider confidentiality and anti-gay rhetoric). There is profound need for multiple-level interventions to ensure that Guatemalan sexual minorities have the knowledge and skills needed to reduce sexual risk. Interventions are warranted to increase social support among sexual minorities, reduce negative perspectives about sexual minorities, develop institutional resources to meet the needs of sexual minorities and reduce harmful anti-gay rhetoric. Understanding and intervening on the identified factors is especially important given that the health of Guatemalan sexual minorities has been to-date neglected.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2014 · Health Promotion International
Show more