Development of a Mixed Methods Investigation of Process and Outcomes of Community-Based Participatory Research.

This article describes a mixed methods study of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership practices and the links between these practices and changes in health status and disparities outcomes. Directed by a CBPR conceptual model and grounded in indigenous-transformative theory, our nation-wide, cross-site study showcases the value of a mixed methods approach for better understanding the complexity of CBPR partnerships across diverse community and research contexts. The article then provides examples of how an iterative, integrated approach to our mixed methods analysis yielded enriched understandings of two key constructs of the model: trust and governance. Implications and lessons learned while using mixed methods to study CBPR are provided.

Research for improved health: variability and impact of structural characteristics in federally funded community engaged research.

BACKGROUND: Although there is strong scientific, policy, and community support for community-engaged research (CEnR)-including community-based participatory research (CBPR)-the science of CEnR is still developing. OBJECTIVE: To describe structural differences in federally funded CEnR projects by type of research (i.e., descriptive, intervention, or dissemination/policy change) and race/ethnicity of the population served. METHODS: We identified 333 federally funded projects in 2009 that potentially involved CEnR, 294 principal investigators/project directors (PI/PD) were eligible to participate in a key informant (KI) survey from late 2011 to early 2012 that asked about partnership structure (68% response rate). RESULTS: The National Institute on Minority Health & Health Disparities (19.1%), National Cancer Institute (NCI; 13.3%), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 12.6%) funded the most CEnR projects. Most were intervention projects (66.0%). Projects serving American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN) populations (compared with other community of color or multiple-race/unspecified) were likely to be descriptive projects (p<.01), receive less funding (p<.05), and have higher rates of written partnership agreements (p<.05), research integrity training (p<.05), approval of publications (p<.01), and data ownership (p<.01). AIAN-serving projects also reported similar rates of research productivity and greater levels of resource sharing compared with those serving multiple-race/unspecified groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is clear variability in the structure of CEnR projects with future research needed to determine the impact of this variability on partnering processes and outcomes. In addition, projects in AIAN communities receive lower levels of funding yet still have comparable research productivity to those projects in other racial/ethnic communities.

Enhancing stewardship of community-engaged research through governance.

OBJECTIVES: We explored the relationship of community-engaged research final approval type (tribal government, health board, or public health office (TG/HB); agency staff or advisory board; or individual or no community approval) with governance processes, productivity, and perceived outcomes. METHODS: We identified 294 federally funded community-engaged research projects in 2009 from the National Institutes of Health's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers, and Native American Research Centers for Health databases. Two hundred (68.0%) investigators completed a survey about governance processes and productivity measures; 312 partners (77.2% of 404 invited) and 138 investigators (69.0% of 200 invited) completed a survey about perceived outcomes. RESULTS: Projects with TG/HB approval had increased likelihood of community control of resources (odds ratios [ORs] ≥ 4.80). Projects with other approvals had decreased likelihood of development or revision of institutional review board policies (ORs ≤ 0.37), having written agreements (ORs ≤ 0.17), and agreements about publishing (ORs ≤ 0.28), data use (ORs ≤ 0.17), and publishing approval (ORs ≤ 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Community-engaged research projects with TG/HB approval had strong stewardship of project resources and agreements. Governance as stewardship protects community interests; thus, is an ethical imperative for communities, especially native communities, to adopt.

Establishing the psychometric properties of constructs in a community-based participatory research conceptual model.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to establish the psychometric properties of 22 measures from a community-based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model. DESIGN: The design of this study was an online, cross-sectional survey of academic and community partners involved in a CPBR project. SETTING: CPBR projects (294) in the United States with federal funding in 2009. SUBJECTS: Of the 404 academic and community partners invited, 312 (77.2%) participated. Of the 200 principal investigators/project directors invited, 138 (69.0%) participated. MEASURES: Twenty-two measures of CBPR context, group dynamics, methods, and health-related outcomes were examined. ANALYSIS: Confirmatory factor analysis to establish factorial validity and Pearson correlations to establish convergent and divergent validity were used. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated strong factorial validity for the 22 constructs. Pearson correlations (p < .001) supported the convergent and divergent validity of the measures. Internal consistency was strong, with 18 of 22 measures achieving at least a .78 Cronbach α. CONCLUSION: CBPR is a key approach for health promotion in underserved communities and/or communities of color, yet the basic psychometric properties of CBPR constructs have not been well established. This study provides evidence of the factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity and the internal consistency of 22 measures related to the CBPR conceptual model. Thus, these measures can be used with confidence by both CBPR practitioners and researchers to evaluate their own CBPR partnerships and to advance the science of CBPR.

Community-based participatory research: its role in future cancer research and public health practice.

The call for community-based participatory research approaches to address cancer health disparities is increasing as concern grows for the limited effectiveness of existing public health practice and research in communities that experience a disparate burden of disease. A national study of participatory research projects, Research for Improved Health, funded by the National Institutes of Health (2009-2013), identified 64 of 333 projects focused on cancer and demonstrated the potential impact participatory approaches can have in reducing cancer disparities. Several projects highlight the success of participatory approaches to cancer prevention and intervention in addressing many of the challenges of traditional practice and research. Best practices include adapting interventions within local contexts, alleviating mistrust, supporting integration of local cultural knowledge, and training investigators from communities that experience cancer disparities. The national study has implications for expanding our understanding of the impact of participatory approaches on alleviating health disparities and aims to enhance our understanding of the barriers and facilitators to effective community-based participatory research.