Community-Based Participatory Research: Insights, Challenges, and Successes From the Perspectives of Frontline Recruiters and Investigators

Nita Vangeepuram, K. Fei, Crispin N. Goytia, Devin Madden, G. Corbie-Smith, C. Horowitz
{"title":"Community-Based Participatory Research: Insights, Challenges, and Successes From the Perspectives of Frontline Recruiters and Investigators","authors":"Nita Vangeepuram, K. Fei, Crispin N. Goytia, Devin Madden, G. Corbie-Smith, C. Horowitz","doi":"10.35844/001c.77399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Employment of community-based participatory research (CBPR) strategies has helped address limitations of traditional research approaches, but we still do not have a full understanding of how study teams successfully conduct research with populations who experience health disparities. To gain insights into the unique successes and challenges of research teams conducting National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded community-engaged research studies, we conducted an online survey with 120 investigators identified through NIH RePORTER and 106 members of the academic study team (research staff) who assisted with recruitment. We examined descriptive statistics and used Chi-square analysis to compare responses between investigators and staff. Most studies targeted low-income, racial/ethnic minority populations and reported high recruitment and retention rates. The most common collaborators were community-based organizations, and the most common study purpose was to evaluate an intervention. There was generally consensus between investigators and staff about effective recruitment and retention strategies, barriers, and facilitators. However, there were also some critical differences, including perceptions about community partner roles and the value of staff input into study design and methods. After the presentation of our key findings, we share best practices for successful recruitment and retention in health disparities research using CBPR approaches.","PeriodicalId":73887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of participatory research methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of participatory research methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.77399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Employment of community-based participatory research (CBPR) strategies has helped address limitations of traditional research approaches, but we still do not have a full understanding of how study teams successfully conduct research with populations who experience health disparities. To gain insights into the unique successes and challenges of research teams conducting National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded community-engaged research studies, we conducted an online survey with 120 investigators identified through NIH RePORTER and 106 members of the academic study team (research staff) who assisted with recruitment. We examined descriptive statistics and used Chi-square analysis to compare responses between investigators and staff. Most studies targeted low-income, racial/ethnic minority populations and reported high recruitment and retention rates. The most common collaborators were community-based organizations, and the most common study purpose was to evaluate an intervention. There was generally consensus between investigators and staff about effective recruitment and retention strategies, barriers, and facilitators. However, there were also some critical differences, including perceptions about community partner roles and the value of staff input into study design and methods. After the presentation of our key findings, we share best practices for successful recruitment and retention in health disparities research using CBPR approaches.
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
基于社区的参与式研究:从一线招聘人员和调查人员的角度看见解、挑战和成功
采用基于社区的参与性研究(CBPR)策略有助于解决传统研究方法的局限性,但我们仍然不完全了解研究团队如何成功地对经历健康差异的人群进行研究。为了深入了解美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)资助的社区参与研究的研究团队的独特成功和挑战,我们对通过NIH RePORTER确定的120名研究人员和协助招聘的106名学术研究团队成员(研究人员)进行了在线调查。我们检查了描述性统计数据,并使用卡方分析来比较调查人员和工作人员之间的反应。大多数研究都针对低收入、种族/少数民族人口,并报告了高招募率和保留率。最常见的合作者是社区组织,最常见的研究目的是评估干预措施。调查人员和工作人员对有效的招聘和留用策略、障碍和促进者达成了普遍共识。然而,也存在一些关键的差异,包括对社区伙伴角色的看法,以及工作人员对研究设计和方法投入的价值。在介绍了我们的主要发现后,我们分享了使用CBPR方法在健康差异研究中成功招募和留住人才的最佳实践。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Editorial: ”How Communities and Research Institutions Work Together to Dismantle Structural Racism and Advance Health Equity” Program Evaluation and Improvement by a Homeless Community Using a Human Centered Design Approach The RESPCCT Study: Community-led Development of a Person-Centered Instrument to Measure Health Equity in Perinatal Services The Equity-Centered Participatory Compensation Model (EPCM): A Tutorial for This Emergent Methodology Amplifying Youth Voices Using Digital Technology: A Case Study in Collaborative Research With Youth Service Organizations
×
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