Community capacity building and sustainability: outcomes of community-based participatory research.

BACKGROUND: For communities, the value of community-based participatory research (CBPR) is often manifested in the outcomes of increased capacity and sustainable adoption of evidence-based practices for social change. Educational opportunities that promote discourse between community and academic partners can help to advance CBPR and better define these outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This paper describes a community-academic conference to develop shared definitions of community capacity building and sustainability related to CBPR and to identify obstacles and facilitators to both. METHODS: "Taking It to the Curbside: Engaging Communities to Create Sustainable Change for Health" was planned by five Clinical Translational Science Institutes and four community organizations. After a keynote presentation, breakout groups of community and academic members met to define community capacity building and sustainability, and to identify facilitators and barriers to achieving both. Groups were facilitated by researcher-community partner teams and conversations were recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analysis for thematic content was conducted by a subset of the planning committee. RESULTS: Important findings included learning that (1) the concepts of capacity and sustainability were considered interconnected; (2) partnership was perceived as both a facilitator and an outcome of CBPR; (3) sustainability was linked to "transfer of knowledge" from one generation to another within a community; and (4) capacity and sustainability were enhanced when goals were shared and health outcomes were achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Community capacity building and sustainability are key outcomes of CBPR for communities. Co-learning opportunities that engage and mutually educate both community members and academics can be useful strategies for identifying meaningful strategies to achieve these outcomes.

Addressing cancer disparities via community network mobilization and intersectoral partnerships: a social network analysis.

Community mobilization and collaboration among diverse partners are vital components of the effort to reduce and eliminate cancer disparities in the United States. We studied the development and impact of intersectoral connections among the members of the Massachusetts Community Network for Cancer Education, Research, and Training (MassCONECT). As one of the Community Network Program sites funded by the National Cancer Institute, this infrastructure-building initiative utilized principles of Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) to unite community coalitions, researchers, policymakers, and other important stakeholders to address cancer disparities in three Massachusetts communities: Boston, Lawrence, and Worcester. We conducted a cross-sectional, sociometric network analysis four years after the network was formed. A total of 38 of 55 members participated in the study (69% response rate). Over four years of collaboration, the number of intersectoral connections reported by members (intersectoral out-degree) increased, as did the extent to which such connections were reported reciprocally (intersectoral reciprocity). We assessed relationships between these markers of intersectoral collaboration and three intermediate outcomes in the effort to reduce and eliminate cancer disparities: delivery of community activities, policy engagement, and grants/publications. We found a positive and statistically significant relationship between intersectoral out-degree and community activities and policy engagement (the relationship was borderline significant for grants/publications). We found a positive and statistically significant relationship between intersectoral reciprocity and community activities and grants/publications (the relationship was borderline significant for policy engagement). The study suggests that intersectoral connections may be important drivers of diverse intermediate outcomes in the effort to reduce and eliminate cancer disparities. The findings support investment in infrastructure-building and intersectoral mobilization in addressing disparities and highlight the benefits of using CBPR approaches for such work.

Perceptions of evidence-based programs among community-based organizations tackling health disparities: a qualitative study.

Dissemination of prevention-focused evidence-based programs (EBPs) from research to community settings may improve population health and reduce health disparities, but such flow has been limited. Academic-community partnerships using community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles may support increased dissemination of EBPs to community-based organizations (CBOs). This qualitative study examined the EBP-related perceptions and needs of CBOs targeting underserved populations. As part of PLANET MassCONECT, a CBPR study, we conducted six key informant interviews with community leaders and four focus groups with CBO staff members in Boston, Worcester and Lawrence, Massachusetts, in 2008. Working definitions of EBPs among CBO staff members varied greatly from typical definitions used by researchers or funders. Key barriers to using EBPs included: resource constraints, program adaptation challenges and conflicts with organizational culture. Important facilitators of EBP usage included: program supports for implementation and adaptation, collaborative technical assistance and perceived benefits of using established programs. This exploratory study highlights differences among key stakeholders regarding the role of evidence in program planning and delivery. An updated perspective should better incorporate CBO perspectives on evidence and place greater, and much needed, emphasis on the impact of context for EBP dissemination in community settings.

A funding initiative for community-based participatory research: lessons from the Harvard Catalyst Seed Grants.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) have increasingly focused on community-engaged research and funded investigators for community-based participatory research (CBPR). However, because CBPR is a collaborative process focused on community-identified research topics, the Harvard CTSA and its Community Advisory Board (CERAB) funded community partners through a CBPR initiative. OBJECTIVES: We describe lessons learned from this seed grants initiative designed to stimulate community-academic CBPR partnerships. METHODS: The CBPR program of the Harvard CTSA and the CERAB developed this initiative and each round incorporated participant and advisory feedback toward program improvement. LESSONS LEARNED: Although this initiative facilitated relevant and innovative research, challenges included variable community research readiness, insufficient project time, and difficulties identifying investigators for new partnerships. CONCLUSION: Seed grants can foster innovative CBPR projects. Similar initiatives should consider preliminary assessments of community research readiness as well as strategies for meaningful academic researcher engagement.

Creating community-based participatory research in a diverse community: a case study.

Communities struggle to create research guidelines for ethical collaborative research within their locale. In Lawrence, Massachusetts (USA) a collaborative group of community members and academic researchers, known as the Mayor's Health Task Force Research Initiative Working Group, took on the challenge of creating guidelines for ethical community-based research. This case study of the Task Force's work addresses questions of research ethics in a diverse community where families struggle with few resources and face many health disparities, under the often-intrusive and unhelpful scrutiny of researchers from the many nearby major research universities. Representatives from the city, community organizations, and research universities developed a set of core ethical principles for research partnerships, a list of criteria for agreements between partners, and a model to help guide researchers and community members toward equitable and mutually beneficial research. This model can be generalized to similar other communities.