Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer.

This paper describes the development and feasibility of the Community Based Research Infrastructure to Better Science (CRIBS) training. The goal of this training program was to help new or existing community-academic teams to build strong partnerships and successfully develop together fundable research projects focused on breast cancer environmental causes and disparities. A comprehensive mixed-methods participatory approach was utilized to assess the training. Twenty-two community-academic teams applied for the training program; twelve teams were enrolled. All teams completed the training and subsequently submitted research applications for funding. All components of the training received high ratings and positive qualitative comments. Self-rated competency in all of the learning domains increased during the training. Four (33%) of teams were successful in their first attempt to garner research funding, and six (50%) were eventually successful. The evaluation of CRIBS found it to have successfully achieved all four goals of the training: (1) Twelve new CBPR (community-based participatory research) teams, (2) improved knowledge about CBPR and science, (3) twelve submitted grant proposals in the first year, and (4) six (50%) successfully funded research projects.

Assessing process and outcomes: evaluating community-based participatory research.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the relationship, if any, between the collaborative process of conducting the CRC projects and reported outcomes. METHODS: 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. RESULT: 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. CONCLUSIONS: Although the relationship between process and outcomes is not necessarily causal, these results suggest an association worthy of further investigation.

Factors affecting the delivery of HIV/AIDS prevention programs by community-based organizations.

Community based organizations (CBOs) play a frontline role in HIV/AIDS prevention activities. CBOs face formidable challenges to effective delivery of HIV prevention services including client characteristics such as homelessness and CBO characteristics such as limited resources and staff turnover. Despite these obstacles, CBOs are generally well positioned to deliver services to specific high-risk populations because they understand their local communities and are connected to the groups they serve. [C1]This qualitative study illustrates that structural, sociocultural, organizational, and individual client factors both facilitate and act as barriers to delivery of HIV prevention services. These challenges and successes help identify critical technical assistance needs.