www.fflh.no/dialog/S6094b-CCPH2007abstracts.html
Sarna Seifer har sendt ut 13 titler de fleste med abstracts
fra
Community-Campus
Partnerships for Health's 10th anniversary conference, "Mobilizing
Partnerships for Social Change," held in April 2007 in Toronto, se http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/conf-overview.html
og Ruth Nesjes referat www.fflh.no/dialog/S6094RuthN-CCPH.html
Fulle artikler er nŒ
publisert i tidsskriftet:
Progress in Community
Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, Johns Hopkins University Press (Volume 2, Issue 2,
Summer 2008)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(1) Editorial: Mobilizing
Partnerships for Social Change
Sarena D. Seifer & Annika Sgambelluri
(2) Measuring the Success of
Local Health Surveys Using Participatory-Based
Research Practices
Lorna E. Thorpe
(3) Community Policy Brief
Assessing Process and
Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory
Research
Marj Plumb, Natalie Collins, Janna N. Cordeiro, Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch
(4) Original Research
Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating
Community-Based Participatory
Research
Marj Plumb, Natalie Collins, Janna N. Cordeiro, Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch
Abstract:
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.
(5) Work-in-Progress & Lessons Learned
Challenges and Lessons Learned in Developing a
Community-Based Health Survey
Lauren A. Shirey, Derek M. Griffith, Jan Brady, Daniel J. Kruger, Susan
Morrel-Samuels, Ella Greene-Moton
Abstract:
Background: Collecting community-level data to inform health
interventions and
monitor health status is critical to improving community health and
eliminating
health disparities. Ideally, the process for designing and utilizing
these data
collection tools will include representation from community, service,
and
academic institutions. The process for incorporating these entities'
diverse
needs and perspectives, however, can be challenging.
Objectives: This paper describes how a community-academic partnership
designed
a survey in 2003 and 2005 to examine factors influencing the health of
residents in an urban city and surrounding county area.
Methods: The partnership used community-based public health research
principles
to guide the development of the telephone surveys.
Lessons Learned: Through these two survey development processes, we
learned
three key lessons: To regularly examine our partnership and process; to
communicate directly with and obtain the support of each individual
partner;
and to focus on building the capacity of the partners and partnership.
(6) Using Community-Based
Participatory Research to Develop a Bilingual Mental
Health Survey for
Latinos
Carolyn M. Garcia, Lauren Gilchrist, Centro Campesino, Nancy Raymond,
Sandy
Naughton, Janeth Guerra de Patino
Abstract:
Background: Despite rapid growth, Latino communities' mental health
needs are
unmet by existing services and research. Barriers may vary by geographic
locations, but often include language, insurance coverage, immigration
status,
cultural beliefs, and lack of services.
Objectives: The aim of this research was development of a
cross-sectional
instrument to assess the mental health status, beliefs, and knowledge of
resources among rural and urban Latinos residing in a Midwestern state.
Methods: The purpose of this article is to describe the community-based
participatory research (CBPR) process of instrument development and
lessons
learned.
Results: A culturally relevant, 100-item bilingual survey instrument was
developed by community and academic partners.
Lessons Learned: Community-based participatory research methods are
salient for
sensitive health topics and varied research objectives, including
instrument
development. To ensure cultural and social relevance of research,
community
participation is crucial at all stages of research, including developing
the
research question and instrument.
(7) Setting Up a Peer Review Process
for Community-Based Organizations:
Conflicts and
Challenges
Michael T. Wright, Karl Lemmen, Martina Block, Hella von Unger
Abstract:
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.
(8) Photovoice in a Toronto Community Partnership: Exploring the Social
Determinants of Health With Homeless People
Nancy Viva, Davis Halifax, Fred Yurichuk, Jim Meeks, Erika Khandor
Abstract:
When working on social justice issues, it is easy to become overwhelmed
by the
problems faced. To maintain morale, it helps to be creative, have fun,
and see
results. In the spring of 2006, we were able to bring together a group
of
people to document, first hand, the daily experience of being homeless
in the
City of Toronto. Using photography and story telling, we were able to
give
voice to a population not often heard. Our powerful images reached out
to the
public through events and publications. This resulted not only in great
coverage and discussion of the important issues we were addressing, but
also in
a successful and rewarding group project that benefited group members in
many
ways.
(9) The Last Straw!: A Tool for Participatory Education About the Social
Determinants of Health
Kate Rossiter, Kate Reeve
Abstract:
Background: In response to a scarcity of teaching tools regarding the
social
determinants of health (SDOH), Kate Reeve and Kate Rossiter created The
Last
Straw! board game, an innovative participatory education tool to
facilitate and
engage critical thinking about the SDOH.
Objectives: The Last Straw! is designed to encourage discussion about
the SDOH,
promote critical thinking, and build empathy with marginalized people.
Methods: The game begins as each player rolls the dice to create a
character
profile, including socioeconomic status (SES), race, and gender. Based
on this
profile, players then receive a certain number of vitality chips. Moving
across
the board, players encounter scenarios that cause them to gain and lose
chips
based on their profile. The player who finishes the game with the most
chips
wins the game. The game can be facilitated for a variety of audiences,
including both players with no prior knowledge of the SDOH and those
experienced in the field.
Conclusions: The game has been played with students, policymakers, and
community workers, among others, and has been met with immense enthusiasm.
Here, we detail the games reception within the community, including
benefits,
limitations, and next steps.
(10) CBPR as Community Health Intervention: Institutionalizing CBPR Within
Community Based Organizations
Marlynn May, Jon Law
Abstract:
Background: A community-academy partnership was created with a
commitment to
developing a program for institutionalizing community-based
participatory
research (CBPR) capacity within community-based organizations (CBOs),
with the
intention to enhance CBOs' existing capabilities to understand and
improve
community health.
Objectives: This article presents the design and conceptual foundations
for a
year-long CBPR education and training program in which CBO teams learn
research
design, discuss the principles of CBPR, design and implement a community
health-related research project tailored to their program and community,
conduct analyses, and initiate integration of the results into the
organization
and community. One objective is to integrate a commitment to and the
practice
of CBPR within CBOs' program and policies.
Methods: An initial partnership was created between the Center for
Border
Health, El Paso, and Texas A&M University School of Rural Public
Health,
College Station. Three additional CBOs then joined the partnership and
participated in the CBPR education and training program consisting of
four
stages: (1)3 intensive months devoted to learning about and creating a
research
design; (2) 6 months for implementation of the design; (3) 2 months for
analyses, interpretation, and consolidation of results into one or more
final
products; and (4) 1 month for development of protocols for integrating
research
results into community health development.
Results: In the first iteration, an interactive process evaluation was
conducted during each program stage, plus a final year-end exit
interview with
each participating CBO. Evaluation demonstrated strong positive results
and
specific lessons learned. A proposal incorporating the lessons learned
was
presented to the funding source. A second iteration has been funded,
with
monies included to develop a formal outcome evaluation.
(11) Podcast Interview Transcript
Marlynn May, Jon Law
(12) Theory and Method
A Participatory Group Process to Analyze Qualitative
Data
Suzanne F. Jackson
Abstract:
Background: When conducting community-based participatory research
(CBPR),
community researchers are often consulted during the analysis step, but
rarely
participate in the entire process.
Objectives: This paper describes a participatory qualitative data
analysis
process that was used in three projects with marginalized women in
Ontario,
Canada. In each project, marginalized women were trained as Inclusion
Researchers (IRs) and participated in all stages of the research
process. Given
the emphasis of the projects on inclusion, it was important that a data
analysis process be developed that was group oriented, engaging,
understandable, and inclusive of the community researchers.
Methods: A five-part analysis process is described including preparation
of the
data, grouping and coding, consolidation, making sense of the data, and
producing a report. This group analysis process took place over 2 full
days
with facilitation by an academic researcher, Details about the
techniques used
for each step are described.
Conclusions: The strengths of this participatory qualitative data
analysis
process were that it enabled participation of people with a mixture of
levels
of education and familiarity with analysis; it enabled community member
control
of the interpretation; and it could handle large volumes of data
quickly. The
main limitation was that additional time and procedures would be
necessary for
a deeper analysis or for groups of over 25 participants. The factors
that
contributed to the success of this participatory analysis process
included
accessible and clear procedures, use of visual grouping techniques, and
a
positive and supportive atmosphere for participation.
(13) Practical Tools
Making Sure Research Is Used: Community-Generated
Recommendations for
Disseminating Research
Jose Ramon Fernandez-Pena, Lisa Moore, Ellen Goldstein, Pamela DeCarlo,
Olga
Grinstead, Carolyn Hunt, Daniel Bao, Hank Wilson
Abstract:
Academic research, no matter how innovative, will never make a
difference in
the lives of people unless it is disseminated in an appropriate and
timely
manner to providers and organizations serving the public. Yet many
researchers
are not trained, rewarded, or supported to disseminate research
findings. The
Community Advisory Board (CAB) of the University of California, San
Francisco,
Center for AIDS Prevention Studies (CAPS) developed a set guidelines to
support
researchers' intentions to disseminate their findings through nontraditional
venues. These guidelines are unique because community members, many of
whom
have struggled with accessing research in a timely way, generated them.
In
addition to developing the guidelines, the CAB also conceived and
implemented a
dissemination strategy for the guidelines. The purpose of this article
is to
present specific guidelines for disseminating research developed by the
CAPS
CAB.
******************************************************************************
Additional papers based
on CCPH conference presentations appear in the December
2007 issue of
Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Indigenous and Aboriginal Community Health,
http://www.pimatisiwin.com/Issues/AllIssues.html.
Som pdf-filer (ogsΠi flere tidligere nummer
******************************************************************************
Community-Campus Partnerships for Health promotes health (broadly
defined)
through partnerships between communities and higher educational
institutions.
Become a member today at www.ccph.info
Join us for CCPH's 11th Conference, April 29-May 2, 2009 in Milwaukee,
WI!
The call for proposals will be released this summer!
******************************************************************************