or foundation sources that have attracted hundreds of applicants (Green, 2003). Defined as a collaborative approach to research, [CBPR] equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health and eliminate health disparities. (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003, p. 4) Along with this definition, CBPR proposes a set of principles based on assumptions that: (a) genuine partnership means colearning (academic and community partners learning from each other), (b) research efforts include capacity building (in addition to conducting the research, there is a commitment to training community members in research), (c) findings and knowledge Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged in the past decades as an alternative research paradigm, which integrates education and social action to improve health and reduce health disparities. More than a set of research methods, CBPR is an orientation to research that focuses on relationships between academic and community partners, with principles of colearning, mutual benefit, and long-term commitment and incorporates community theories, participation, and practices into the research efforts. As CBPR matures, tensions have become recognized that challenge the mutuality of the research relationship, including issues of power, privilege, participation, community consent, racial and/or ethnic discrimination, and the role of research in social change. This article focuses on these challenges as a dynamic and ever-changing context of the researcher-community relationship, provides examples of these paradoxes from work in tribal communities, discusses the evidence that CBPR reduces disparities, and recommends transforming the culture of academia to strengthen collaborative research relationships.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged in the last decades as a transformative research paradigm that bridges the gap between science and practice through community engagement and social action to increase health equity. CBPR expands the potential for the translational sciences to develop, implement, and disseminate effective interventions across diverse communities through strategies to redress power imbalances; facilitate mutual benefit among community and academic partners; and promote reciprocal knowledge translation, incorporating community theories into the research. We identify the barriers and challenges within the intervention and implementation sciences, discuss how CBPR can address these challenges, provide an illustrative research example, and discuss next steps to advance the translational science of CBPR.

This article describes a mixed methods study of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership practices and the links between these practices and changes in health status and disparities outcomes. Directed by a CBPR conceptual model and grounded in indigenous-transformative theory, our nation-wide, cross-site study showcases the value of a mixed methods approach for better understanding the complexity of CBPR partnerships across diverse community and research contexts. The article then provides examples of how an iterative, integrated approach to our mixed methods analysis yielded enriched understandings of two key constructs of the model: trust and governance. Implications and lessons learned while using mixed methods to study CBPR are provided.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been widely used in public health research in the last decade as an approach to develop culturally centered interventions and collaborative research processes in which communities are directly involved in the construction and implementation of these interventions and in other application of findings. Little is known, however, about CBPR pathways of change and how these academic-community collaborations may contribute to successful outcomes. A new health CBPR conceptual model (Wallerstein N, Oetzel JG, Duran B et al. CBPR: What predicts outcomes? In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N (eds). Communication Based Participatory Research, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Co., 2008) suggests that relationships between four components: context, group dynamics, the extent of community-centeredness in intervention and/or research design and the impact of these participatory processes on CBPR system change and health outcomes. This article seeks to identify instruments and measures in a comprehensive literature review that relates to these distinct components of the CBPR model and to present them in an organized and indexed format for researcher use. Specifically, 258 articles were identified in a review of CBPR (and related) literature from 2002 to 2008. Based on this review and from recommendations of a national advisory board, 46 CBPR instruments were identified and each was reviewed and coded using the CBPR logic model. The 46 instruments yielded 224 individual measures of characteristics in the CBPR model. While this study does not investigate the quality of the instruments, it does provide information about reliability and validity for specific measures. Group dynamics proved to have the largest number of identified measures, while context and CBPR system and health outcomes had the least. Consistent with other summaries of instruments, such as Granner and Sharpe's inventory (Granner ML, Sharpe PA. Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Educ Res 2004; 19: 514-32), validity and reliability information were often lacking, and one or both were only available for 65 of the 224 measures. This summary of measures provides a place to start for new and continuing partnerships seeking to evaluate their progress.

Background Since 2007, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) Policy Research Center (PRC) has partnered with the Universities of New Mexico and Washington to study the science of community-based participatory research (CBPR). Our goal is to identify facilitators and barriers to effective community–academic partnerships in American Indian and other communities, which face health disparities. Objectives We have described herein the scientific design of our National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded study (2009–2013) and lessons learned by having a strong community partner leading the research efforts. Methods The research team is implementing a mixed-methods study involving a survey of principal investigators (PIs) and partners across the nation and in-depth case studies of CBPR projects. Results We present preliminary findings on methods and measures for community-engaged research and eight lessons learned thus far regarding partnership evaluation, advisory councils, historical trust, research capacity development of community partner, advocacy, honoring each other, messaging, and funding. Conclusions Study methodologies and lessons learned can help community–academic research partnerships translate research in communities.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to establish the psychometric properties of 22 measures from a community-based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model. Design On-line, cross-sectional survey of academic and community partners involved in a CPBR project Setting 294 CPBR projects in the U.S. with federal funding in 2009 Subjects 312 (77.2% of 404 invited) academic and community partners and 138 principal investigators/project directors (69.0% of 200 invited) Measures 22 measures of CBPR context, group dynamics, methods, and health-related outcomes Analysis Confirmatory factor analysis to establish factorial validity and Pearson correlations to establish convergent and divergent validity Results Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated strong factorial validity for the 22 constructs. Pearson correlations (p < .001) supported the convergent and divergent validity of the measures. Internal consistency was strong with 18 of 22 measures achieving at least a .78 Cronbach’s alpha. Conclusion CBPR is a key approach for health promotion in underserved communities and/or communities of color and yet the basic psychometric properties of CBPR constructs have not been well established. This study provides evidence of the factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity, and internal consistency of 22 measures related to the CBPR conceptual model. Thus, these measures can be used with confidence by both CBPR practitioners and researchers to evaluate their own CBPR partnerships and advance the science of CBPR.

Increasingly, understanding how the role of historical events and context affect present-day health inequities has become a dominant narrative among Native American communities. Historical trauma, which consists of traumatic events targeting a community (e.g., forced relocation) that cause catastrophic upheaval, has been posited by Native communities and some researchers to have pernicious effects that persist across generations through a myriad of mechanisms from biological to behavioral. Consistent with contemporary societal determinants of health approaches, the impact of historical trauma calls upon researchers to explicitly examine theoretically and empirically how historical processes and contexts become embodied. Scholarship that theoretically engages how historically traumatic events become embodied and affect the magnitude and distribution of health inequities is clearly needed. However, the scholarship on historical trauma is limited. Some scholars have focused on these events as etiological agents to social and psychological distress; others have focused on events as an outcome (e.g., historical trauma response); others still have focused on these events as mechanisms or pathwaysby which historical trauma is transmitted; and others have focused on historical trauma-related factors (e.g., collective loss) that interact with proximal stressors. These varied conceptualizations of historical trauma have hindered the ability to cogently theorize it and its impact on Native health. The purpose of this article is to explicate the link between historical trauma and the concept of embodiment. After an interdisciplinary review of the “state of the discipline,” we utilize ecosocial theory and the indigenist stress-coping model to argue that contemporary physical health reflects, in part, the embodiment of historical trauma. Future research directions are discussed.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a global public health problem, yet data on IPV against Native American women are extremely limited. We conducted a cross-sectional study of Native American women to determine prevalence of lifetime and past-year IPV and partner injury; examine IPV in relation to pregnancy; and assess demographic and socioeconomic correlates of past-year IPV.