Susan L Murphy, Alexandra E Harper, Gina M Jay, Vanessa I Trujillo, Kristen Weeks-Norton, Elias Samuels, Jonathan P Troost, Brenda Eakin, Gretchen Piatt, Catherine Striley, Analay Perez, Shannen McIntosh, Daphne C Watkins, Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, Linda Cottler
{"title":"对针对社区卫生工作者和宣传员的同伴引导研究最佳做法培训进行评估。","authors":"Susan L Murphy, Alexandra E Harper, Gina M Jay, Vanessa I Trujillo, Kristen Weeks-Norton, Elias Samuels, Jonathan P Troost, Brenda Eakin, Gretchen Piatt, Catherine Striley, Analay Perez, Shannen McIntosh, Daphne C Watkins, Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, Linda Cottler","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Community health workers and promotoras (CHW/Ps) increasingly support research conducted in communities but receive variable or no training. We developed a culturally and linguistically tailored research best practices course for CHW/Ps that can be taken independently or in facilitated groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the facilitated training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CHW/Ps were recruited from communities and partners affiliated with study sites in Michigan, Florida, and California. They participated in virtual or in-person training facilitated by a peer in English or Spanish and then completed a survey about their abilities (i.e., knowledge and skills for participating in research-related work) and perceptions of the training. Linear regression analyses were used to examine differences in training experience across several factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 394 CHW/Ps, mean age 41.6 ± 13.8 years, completed the training and survey (<i>n</i> = 275 English; 119 Spanish). Most CHW/Ps were female (80%), and 50% identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. Over 95% of CHW/Ps rated their abilities as improved after training; 98% agreed the course was relevant to their work and felt the training was useful. Small differences were observed between training sites.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most CHW/Ps rated the training positively and noted improved knowledge and skills for engaging in research-related work. Despite slight site differences, the training was well received, and CHW/Ps appreciated having a facilitator with experience working in community-based settings. This course offers a standard and scalable approach to training the CHW/P workforce. Future studies can examine its uptake and effect on research quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428051/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of a peer-led research best practices training for community health workers and promotoras.\",\"authors\":\"Susan L Murphy, Alexandra E Harper, Gina M Jay, Vanessa I Trujillo, Kristen Weeks-Norton, Elias Samuels, Jonathan P Troost, Brenda Eakin, Gretchen Piatt, Catherine Striley, Analay Perez, Shannen McIntosh, Daphne C Watkins, Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, Linda Cottler\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2024.593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Community health workers and promotoras (CHW/Ps) increasingly support research conducted in communities but receive variable or no training. We developed a culturally and linguistically tailored research best practices course for CHW/Ps that can be taken independently or in facilitated groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the facilitated training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CHW/Ps were recruited from communities and partners affiliated with study sites in Michigan, Florida, and California. They participated in virtual or in-person training facilitated by a peer in English or Spanish and then completed a survey about their abilities (i.e., knowledge and skills for participating in research-related work) and perceptions of the training. Linear regression analyses were used to examine differences in training experience across several factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 394 CHW/Ps, mean age 41.6 ± 13.8 years, completed the training and survey (<i>n</i> = 275 English; 119 Spanish). Most CHW/Ps were female (80%), and 50% identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. Over 95% of CHW/Ps rated their abilities as improved after training; 98% agreed the course was relevant to their work and felt the training was useful. Small differences were observed between training sites.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most CHW/Ps rated the training positively and noted improved knowledge and skills for engaging in research-related work. Despite slight site differences, the training was well received, and CHW/Ps appreciated having a facilitator with experience working in community-based settings. This course offers a standard and scalable approach to training the CHW/P workforce. Future studies can examine its uptake and effect on research quality.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428051/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.593\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of a peer-led research best practices training for community health workers and promotoras.
Introduction: Community health workers and promotoras (CHW/Ps) increasingly support research conducted in communities but receive variable or no training. We developed a culturally and linguistically tailored research best practices course for CHW/Ps that can be taken independently or in facilitated groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the facilitated training.
Methods: CHW/Ps were recruited from communities and partners affiliated with study sites in Michigan, Florida, and California. They participated in virtual or in-person training facilitated by a peer in English or Spanish and then completed a survey about their abilities (i.e., knowledge and skills for participating in research-related work) and perceptions of the training. Linear regression analyses were used to examine differences in training experience across several factors.
Results: A total of 394 CHW/Ps, mean age 41.6 ± 13.8 years, completed the training and survey (n = 275 English; 119 Spanish). Most CHW/Ps were female (80%), and 50% identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. Over 95% of CHW/Ps rated their abilities as improved after training; 98% agreed the course was relevant to their work and felt the training was useful. Small differences were observed between training sites.
Discussion: Most CHW/Ps rated the training positively and noted improved knowledge and skills for engaging in research-related work. Despite slight site differences, the training was well received, and CHW/Ps appreciated having a facilitator with experience working in community-based settings. This course offers a standard and scalable approach to training the CHW/P workforce. Future studies can examine its uptake and effect on research quality.