A call for an international collaboration on participatory research for health.

Participatory health research (PHR) has emerged as an important approach for addressing local health issues, including building capacity for health promotion. Increasingly, PHR is drawing the attention of communities, funders, decision-makers and researchers worldwide. It is time to consolidate what we know about PHR in order to secure its place as a source of knowledge and action for public health. This can be achieved through an International Collaboration on Participatory Research for Health to addresses the following issues:Set a framework in which information can be exchanged, decisions can be reached and information can be disseminated on central issues in PHR. Provide an international forum to discuss standards and quality. Produce guidelines for researchers, practitioners and community members. Synthesize the findings of PHR internationally. Formulate recommendations regarding generalizable findings. Similar to the Cochrane Collaboration on clinical trials research, the PHR Collaboration will be dependent on a host of experts from various countries to bring together what we know about PHR and to make that knowledge accessible to an international audience. Unlike the Cochrane Collaboration, the PHR Collaboration will include both quantitative and qualitative research approaches. The goal of the PHR Collaboration will not be able to achieve a standardization of research protocols, but rather to find meaningful ways to judge the quality of PHR and to report on its findings while respecting the variety of locally based approaches to research design, data collection and interpretation.

Setting up a peer review process for community-based organizations: conflicts and challenges.

BACKGROUND: The authors are conducting a national demonstration project in Germany to develop quality assurance structures and methods for community-based HIV prevention. OBJECTIVES: We sought to provide outside input to AIDS service organizations (ASOs) on their prevention work while improving the local discourse on the quality of HIV prevention. METHODS: A voluntary peer review process with community workers, funders, community members, and researchers as reviewers. LESSONS LEARNED: Although the idea of a peer review process is interesting for many ASOs, it has been difficult finding organizations to participate in the process. Issues of trust regarding the intentions of the reviewers and concerns about publicizing the results have prevented implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Peer review is a promising idea for the further development of quality assurance in the HIV prevention of German ASOs. More time needs to be invested in implementing the process to build trust on all sides.