Evaluation of a Community-Based Participatory Research Consortium From the Perspective of Academics and Community Service Providers Focused on Child Health and Well-Being

Abstract

A process evaluation of a consortium of academic researchers and community-based service providers focused on the health and well-being of children and families provides empirical and practice-based evidence of those factors important for community-based participatory research (CBPR). This study draws on quantitative ratings of 33 factors associated with CBPR as well as open-ended questions addressing the benefits, facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for collaboration. Eight distinct but related studies are represented by 10 academic and 9 community researchers. Even though contextual considerations were identified between the academic and community partners, in large part because of their focus, organizational mandate and particular expertise, key factors for facilitating collaboration were found across groups. Both community and academic partners reported the following as very important for positive collaborations: trust and mutual respect; adequate time; shared commitment, decision making, and goals; a memorandum of understanding or partnership agreement; clear communication; involvement of community partners in the interpretation of the data and information dissemination; and regular meetings. The results are compared to current models of collaboration across different contexts and highlight factors important for CBPR with community service providers.

Keywords

community—university collaborations community-based participatory research facilitators barriers process evaluation relational factors community service organizations consortiums

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bronfenbrenner, U. ( 1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Creswell, J.W. ( 2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. ( 2006, April). Achieving the promise of authentic community-higher education partnerships: Community case stories. Seattle, WA: Author.

Currie, M. , King, G. , Rosenbaum, P. , Law, M. , Kertoy, M. , & Specht, J. ( 2005). A model of impacts of research partnerships in health and social services. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 400-412.

Fawcett, S.B. , Paine-Andrews, A. , Fransciso, V.T. , Schultz, J.A. , Richter, K.P. , Lewis, R.K. , . . ., Fisher, J.L. ( 1995). Using empowerment theory in collaborative partnerships for community health and development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 677-697.

Göb, R. , McCollin, C. , & Fernada Ramalhoto, M. (2007). Ordinal methodology in the analysis of Likert scales. Quality & Quantity, 41, 601-626.

Haney, W. , Russell, M. , Gulek, C. , & Fierros, E. ( 1998). Drawing on education: Using student drawings to promote middle school improvement. Schools in the Middle, 7(3), 38-43.

Israel, B.A. , Krieger, J. , Valahov, D. , Ciske, S. , Foley, M. , Fortin, P. , Tang, G. ( 2006). Challenge and facilitating factors in sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: Lessons learned from Detroit, New York City and Seattle Urban Research Centres. Journal of Urban Health, 83, 1022-1040.

Johnson, R.B. , & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher , 33, 14-26.

10.

King, G. , Currie, M. , Smith, L. , Servais, M. , & McDougall, J. ( 2008). A framework of operating models for interdisciplinary research programs in clinical service organizations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, 160-173.

11.

Kone, A. , Sullivan, M. , Senturia, K.D. , Chrisman, N. , Ciske, S.J. , & Krieger, J.W. ( 2000). Improving collaboration between researchers and communities . Public Health Reports, 115, 243-248.

12.

Minkler, M. ( 2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Urban Health, 82(2), ii3-ii12.

13.

Norris, K.C. , Brusuelas, R. , Jones, L. , Miranda, J. , Duru, O.K. , & Mangione, C.M. (2007). Partnering with community-based organizations: An academic institution’s evolving perspective. Ethnicity & Disease, 17(1 Suppl. 1), S27-S32.

14.

Pivik, J. ( 1997). Facilitating collaborative research: Strategies from the health researcher’s perspective. Toronto, Canada: Educating Future Physicians of Ontario.

15.

Pivik, J. ( 2004a). Practical strategies for facilitating meaningful citizen involvement in health planning. In: P. Forest , T. McIntosh , & G. P. Marchildon (Eds.), Changing health care in Canada (pp. 312-348). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press Inc.

16.

Pivik, J. ( 2006). Program evaluation of the Supporting Interdisciplinary Practice: The family physician/nurse practitioner educational and mentoring program. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

17.

Pivik, J. , Rode, E. , & Ward, C. ( 2004). A consumer involvement model for health technology assessment . Health Policy, 69, 253-268.

18.

Pivik, J. , & Weaver, L. ( 1997). Facilitating community participation in health care planning: Recommendations from consumers and health professionals. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Health Information Partnership .

19.

Reed, B.J. , Schumaker, A. , & Woods, S. ( 2000). Collaborative models for metropolitan university outreach: The Omaha experience. Cityscape, 5, 197-207.

20.

Shonkoff, J.P. ( 2000). Science, policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development, 71, 181-187.

21.

Shoultz, J. , Oheha, M.F. , Magnussen, L. , Hla, M. , Bress-Suanders, Z. , Dela Cruz, M. , & Douglas, M. ( 2006). Finding solutions to challenges faced in community-based participatory research between academic and community organizations. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20, 133-144.

22.

Stemler, S. ( 2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17

23.

Stokols, D. ( 2006). Towards a science of transdisciplinary action research . American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 63-77.

24.

Suarez-Balcazar, Y. , Harper, G. , & Lewis, R. ( 2005). An interactive and contextual model of community-university collaborations for research and action. Health Education & Behavior, 32, 84-101.

25.

Thompson, L.S. , Story, M. , & Butler, G. ( 2003). Use of a university-community collaboration model to frame issues and set an agenda for strengthening a community. Health Promotion Practice, 4, 385-392.

26.

Weaver, L. , & Pivik, J. ( 1997a). Community participation among members of the Health Information Partnership. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Health Information Partnership.

27.

Weaver, L. , & Pivik, J. ( 1997b). Out of the mouths of experts: A community participation reader and compilation of community participation how-to hints. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Health Information Partnership .

28.

Yoshikawa, H. , Weisner, T. , Kalil, A. , & Way, N. ( 2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: Uses and methodological choices. Developmental Psychology , 44, 344-354.