Aiming for transformations in power: lessons from intersectoral CBPR with public housing tenants (Québec, Canada).

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Promotion International Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1093/heapro/daae085
Stephanie Radziszewski, Janie Houle, Corentin Montiel, Jean-Marc Fontan, Juan Torres, Kate Frolich, Antoine Boivin, Simon Coulombe, Hélène Gaudreau
{"title":"Aiming for transformations in power: lessons from intersectoral CBPR with public housing tenants (Québec, Canada).","authors":"Stephanie Radziszewski, Janie Houle, Corentin Montiel, Jean-Marc Fontan, Juan Torres, Kate Frolich, Antoine Boivin, Simon Coulombe, Hélène Gaudreau","doi":"10.1093/heapro/daae085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Intersectoral collaborations are recommended as effective strategies to reduce health inequalities. People most affected by health inequalities, as are people living in poverty, remain generally absent from such intersectoral collaborations. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects can be leveraged to better understand how to involve people with lived experience to support both individual and community empowerment. In this paper, we offer a critical reflection on a CBPR project conducted in public housing in Québec, Canada, that aimed to develop intersectoral collaboration between tenants and senior executives from four sectors (housing, health, city and community organizations). This single qualitative case study design consisted of fieldwork documents, observations and semi-structured interviews. Using the Emancipatory Power Framework (EPF) and the Limiting Power Framework (LPF), we describe examples of types of power and resistance shown by the tenants, the intersectoral partners and the research team. The discussion presents lessons learned through the study, including the importance for research teams to reflect on their own power, especially when aiming to reduce health inequalities. The paper concludes by describing the limitations of the analyses conducted through the EPF-LPF frameworks and suggestions to increase the transformative power of future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":54256,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion International","volume":"39 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11304601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae085","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intersectoral collaborations are recommended as effective strategies to reduce health inequalities. People most affected by health inequalities, as are people living in poverty, remain generally absent from such intersectoral collaborations. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects can be leveraged to better understand how to involve people with lived experience to support both individual and community empowerment. In this paper, we offer a critical reflection on a CBPR project conducted in public housing in Québec, Canada, that aimed to develop intersectoral collaboration between tenants and senior executives from four sectors (housing, health, city and community organizations). This single qualitative case study design consisted of fieldwork documents, observations and semi-structured interviews. Using the Emancipatory Power Framework (EPF) and the Limiting Power Framework (LPF), we describe examples of types of power and resistance shown by the tenants, the intersectoral partners and the research team. The discussion presents lessons learned through the study, including the importance for research teams to reflect on their own power, especially when aiming to reduce health inequalities. The paper concludes by describing the limitations of the analyses conducted through the EPF-LPF frameworks and suggestions to increase the transformative power of future studies.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以权力变革为目标:与公共住房租户开展跨部门 CBPR 的经验教训(加拿大魁北克省)。
部门间合作被推荐为减少健康不平等的有效战略。受健康不平等影响最严重的人群,如生活贫困的人群,仍然普遍缺席此类跨部门合作。以社区为基础的参与式研究(CBPR)项目可以更好地了解如何让有生活经验的人参与进来,以支持个人和社区的赋权。在本文中,我们对在加拿大魁北克省公共住房开展的 CBPR 项目进行了批判性反思,该项目旨在发展租户与来自四个部门(住房、卫生、城市和社区组织)的高级管理人员之间的跨部门合作。这项单一的定性案例研究设计包括实地工作文件、观察和半结构化访谈。我们利用解放权力框架(EPF)和限制权力框架(LPF),描述了租户、跨部门合作伙伴和研究团队所表现出的权力和抵制类型。讨论介绍了通过研究获得的经验教训,包括研究团队反思自身权力的重要性,尤其是在旨在减少健康不平等的情况下。最后,论文阐述了通过 EPF-LPF 框架进行分析的局限性,并就如何提高未来研究的变革力提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Promotion International
Health Promotion International Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: Health Promotion International contains refereed original articles, reviews, and debate articles on major themes and innovations in the health promotion field. In line with the remits of the series of global conferences on health promotion the journal expressly invites contributions from sectors beyond health. These may include education, employment, government, the media, industry, environmental agencies, and community networks. As the thought journal of the international health promotion movement we seek in particular theoretical, methodological and activist advances to the field. Thus, the journal provides a unique focal point for articles of high quality that describe not only theories and concepts, research projects and policy formulation, but also planned and spontaneous activities, organizational change, as well as social and environmental development.
期刊最新文献
Non-government advocacy for health equity: evidence from Australia. A mixed-methods study among adolescents and teachers in Bogotá, Colombia: adapting the OurFutures Alcohol Program. Adding sugar to children's beverages: a theory of planned behavior study of Lebanese mothers. Intimidation against advocates and researchers in the tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food spaces: a review. Resisting industry narratives: guidance to avoid tobacco and nicotine industry framing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1