ContextParticipatory research (PR) is the co-construction of research through partnerships between researchers and people affected by and/or responsible for action on the issues under study. Evaluating the benefits of PR is challenging for a number of reasons: the research topics, methods, and study designs are heterogeneous; the extent of collaborative involvement may vary over the duration of a project and from one project to the next; and partnership activities may generate a complex array of both short- and long-term outcomes.MethodsOur review team consisted of a collaboration among researchers and decision makers in public health, research funding, ethics review, and community-engaged scholarship. We identified, selected, and appraised a large-variety sample of primary studies describing PR partnerships, and in each stage, two team members independently reviewed and coded the literature. We used key realist review concepts (middle-range theory, demi-regularity, and context-mechanism-outcome configurations [CMO]) to analyze and synthesize the data, using the PR partnership as the main unit of analysis.FindingsFrom 7,167 abstracts and 591 full-text papers, we distilled for synthesis a final sample of twenty-three PR partnerships described in 276 publications. The link between process and outcome in these partnerships was best explained using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, which demonstrates how PR can (1) ensure culturally and logistically appropriate research, (2) enhance recruitment capacity, (3) generate professional capacity and competence in stakeholder groups, (4) result in productive conflicts followed by useful negotiation, (5) increase the quality of outputs and outcomes over time, (6) increase the sustainability of project goals beyond funded time frames and during gaps in external funding, and (7) create system changes and new unanticipated projects and activities. Negative examples illustrated why these outcomes were not a guaranteed product of PR partnerships but were contingent on key aspects of context.ConclusionsWe used a realist approach to embrace the heterogeneity and complexity of the PR literature. This theory-driven synthesis identified mechanisms by which PR may add value to the research process. Using the middle-range theory of partnership synergy, our review confirmed findings from previous PR reviews, documented and explained some negative outcomes, and generated new insights into the benefits of PR regarding conflicts and negotiation between stakeholders, program sustainability and advancement, unanticipated project activity, and the generation of systemic change.

Abstract-Despite an increasing arsenal of effective treatments, there are mounting challenges in developing strategies that prevent and control cardiovascular diseases, and that can be sustained and scaled to meet the needs of those most vulnerable to their impact. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to conducting research by equitably partnering researchers and those directly affected by and knowledgeable of the local circumstances that impact health. To inform research design, implementation and dissemination, this approach challenges academic and community partners to invest in team building, share resources, and mutually exchange ideas and expertise. CBPR has led to a deeper understanding of the myriad factors influencing health and illness, a stream of ideas and innovations, and there are expanding opportunities for funding and academic advancement. To maximize the chance that CBPR will lead to tangible, lasting health benefits for communities, researchers will need to balance rigorous research with routine adoption of its conduct in ways that respectfully, productively and equally involve local partners. If successful, lessons learned should inform policy and inspire structural changes in healthcare systems and in communities.

As the US health care system strives to function efficiently, encourage preventive and primary care, improve quality, and overcome nonfinancial barriers to care, the potential exists for community health workers to further these goals. Community health workers can increase access to care and facilitate appropriate use of health resources by providing outreach and cultural linkages between communities and delivery systems; reduce costs by providing health education, screening, detection, and basic emergency care; and improve quality by contributing to patient-provider communication, continuity of care, and consumer protection. Information sharing, program support, program evaluation, and continuing education are needed to expand the use of community health workers and better integrate them into the health care delivery system.

Since Ernest Boyer's landmark 1990 report, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, leaders in higher education, including academic medicine, have advocated that faculty members apply their expertise in new and creative ways in partnership with communities. Such community engagement can take many forms, including community-based teaching, research, clinical care, and service. There continues to be a gap, however, between the rhetoric of this idea and the reality of how promotion and tenure actually work in health professions schools. The Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions was established in October 2003 with funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to take a leadership role in creating a more supportive culture and reward system for community-engaged faculty in the nation's health professions schools. The authors prepared this article to inform the commission's deliberations and to stimulate discussion among educators in the health professions. The authors define the work that faculty engage in with communities, consider whether all work by faculty in community-based settings is actually scholarship, and propose a framework for documenting and assessing community-engaged scholarship for promotion and tenure decisions. They conclude with recommendations for change in academic health centers and health professions schools.

BackgroundParticipatory Research (PR) entails the co-governance of research by academic researchers and end-users. End-users are those who are affected by issues under study (e.g., community groups or populations affected by illness), or those positioned to act on the knowledge generated by research (e.g., clinicians, community leaders, health managers, patients, and policy makers). Systematic reviews assessing the generalizable benefits of PR must address: the diversity of research topics, methods, and intervention designs that involve a PR approach; varying degrees of end-user involvement in research co-governance, both within and between projects; and the complexity of outcomes arising from long-term partnerships.MethodsWe addressed the above mentioned challenges by adapting realist review methodology to PR assessment, specifically by developing inductively-driven identification, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures. This approach allowed us to address the non-uniformity and complexity of the PR literature. Each stage of the review involved two independent reviewers and followed a reproducible, systematic coding and retention procedure. Retained studies were completed participatory health interventions, demonstrated high levels of participation by non-academic stakeholders (i.e., excluding studies in which end-users were not involved in co-governing throughout the stages of research) and contained detailed descriptions of the participatory process and context. Retained sets are being mapped and analyzed using realist review methods.ResultsThe librarian-guided search string yielded 7,167 citations. A total of 594 citations were retained after the identification process. Eighty-three papers remained after selection. Principle Investigators (PIs) were contacted to solicit all companion papers. Twenty-three sets of papers (23 PR studies), comprising 276 publications, passed appraisal and are being synthesized using realist review methods.DiscussionThe systematic and stage-based procedure addressed challenges to PR assessment and generated our robust understanding of complex and heterogeneous PR practices. To date, realist reviews have focussed on evaluations of relatively uniform interventions. In contrast our PR search yielded a wide diversity of partnerships and research topics. We therefore developed tools to achieve conceptual clarity on the PR field, as a beneficial precursor to our theoretically-driven synthesis using realist methods. Findings from the ongoing review will be provided in forthcoming publications.

Objectives Women, the elderly, racial/ethnic, and rural populations are underrepresented in research, which leads to findings that are not representative of diverse populations. A “Sentinel Network” of five sites has been implemented to understand health concerns of underrepresented groups, based on the Community Health Worker (CHW) model. Methods Investigators at the five sites (Washington University, U.C. Davis, U. Michigan, U. Rochester, Einstein College of Medicine) and two community-focused national organizations (Community-Campus Partnerships for Health and Patient Advocates in Research), developed a common assessment used by CHWs to elicit information about research perceptions, top health and neighborhood concerns, and health conditions. Results CHWs surveyed 5,979 individuals. Across all sites, while the top five health concerns were hypertension, diabetes, cancer, weight, and heart problems, high blood pressure was the most common self-reported condition. Interest in research participation ranged from 70.1% among those of “other” races to 91.0% among African-Americans. Overall, African Americans were more likely than persons of other race/ethnic groups to be interested in participating in studies that required giving blood samples (82.6%), genetic samples (76.9%), medical records (77.2%), staying overnight in a hospital (70.5%) and using medical equipment (75.4%). Conclusions This study found that 87% of Sentinel Network participants are interested in participating in health research. Top health concerns were consistent across geography. African-Americans reported higher willingness to participate in research even if it requires blood samples or genetic testing.

The Examining Community-Institutional Partnerships for Prevention Research Project began in October 2002 with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Research Center Program Office through a cooperative agreement between the Association of Schools of Public Health and the CDC. The three-year project aimed to synthesize knowledge about community-institutional partnerships for prevention research and to build community and institutional capacity for participatory research. These ten organizations collaborated on the project because they were all involved in community-institutional partnerships for prevention research, had access to research and evaluation data on these partnerships, and believed that the shared learning and action that would result through a collaborative effort could significantly advance collective knowledge about partnerships and lead to substantive capacity-building responses: the Community Health Scholars Program, Community-Based Public Health Caucus of the American Public Health Association, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health, Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center, Harlem Health Promotion Center, National Community Committee of the CDC Prevention Research Centers Program, New York Urban Research Center, Seattle Partners for Healthy Communities, Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center and the Wellesley Institute. This paper reports on the project's findings, including common characteristics of successful partnerships and recommendations for strengthening emerging and established partnerships.

No abstract