Summarizing Community-Based Participatory Research: Background and Context for the Review Lucille Webb, MEd Eugenia Eng, DrPH Alice Ammerman, DrPH Meera.
Published byModified over 6 years ago
Presentation on theme: "Summarizing Community-Based Participatory Research: Background and Context for the Review Lucille Webb, MEd Eugenia Eng, DrPH Alice Ammerman, DrPH Meera."— Presentation transcript:
Summarizing Community-Based Participatory Research: Background and Context for the Review Lucille Webb, MEd Eugenia Eng, DrPH Alice Ammerman, DrPH Meera Viswanathan, PhD Kathleen Lohr, PhD
Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) CBPR is a collaborative approach to: – Research that combines methods of inquiry with community capacity building – Strategies to bridge the gap between knowledge produced through research – Translation of research into interventions and policies
CBPR – Few Guidelines Exist To indicate how research proposals should be evaluated What resources are required to promote successful efforts
Clarifying the Benefits CBPR if done properly: – Benefits community participants, health practitioners and researchers alike – Scientists and communities both gain in knowledge and experience – Collaboration assists in developing culturally appropriate measurement instruments – Establishes a level of trust that enhances both quantity and quality of data collected – Examines the community’s own unique circumstances to test and adapt best practices to its own needs
Assessing the Need Convening CBPR Conference in November 2001 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) in collaboration with: – The W. K. Kellogg Foundation – The Office of Minority Health, US Dept. of Health and Human Services – The Office of Behavioral and Social Science, National Institutes of Health
Assessing the Need November 2001 Conference Goals: – Promote and support use of CBPR – Develop strategies to advance CBPR – Explore the use of CBPR as a resource for policymakers to help guide their program development
Three Key Barriers to CBPR Poor community incentives and capacity to be partners in CBPR projects Poor community incentives and capacity for researchers to act as partners in CBPR projects Inadequate funding and insensitive funding mechanisms
CBPR Conference Participants Representatives from community-based organizations, academic institutions, federal agencies, private foundations, professional organizations, peer reviewed journals Produced three sets of recommendations aimed at funders, community members and academics Requested an AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) to synthesize evidence on conduct and evaluation of CBPR
Results of Conference AHRQ awarded evidence report to RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC) to produce a systematic review and synthesis of its role in improving community health
EPC to Consider Four Key Questions (KQs) KQ1: What defines community-based participatory research? KQ2: How has CBPR been implemented to date, with regard to the quality of research, methodology and community involvement? KQ3: What is the evidence that CBPR efforts have resulted in the intended outcomes? KQ4: What criteria and process should be used for review of CBPR in grant proposals?
Methods RTI-UNC EPC convened expert meeting in November 2002 Participants: community research partners, academic researchers and CBPR research financiers Discussed key issues and audiences for CBPR report Defined clear and appropriate research questions
Role of Technical Expert Advisory Group (TEAG) Represented 11 CBPR Experts who provided assistance throughout the project Served as additional resource and sounding board during project
Role of TEAG Through conference calls and e-mails: – Refined the analytic framework – Discussed the preliminary assessment of the literature, including inclusion/exclusion criteria – Provided input on the information and categories included in evidence tables TEAG members participated in external review of draft report External Peer Review – Wide array of outside experts in the field and from relevant professional societies and public organizations reviewed the report