Community-based participatory research (CBPR) answers the call for more patient-centered, community-driven research approaches to address growing health disparities. CBPR is a collaborative research approach that equitably involves community members, researchers, and other stakeholders in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each bring. The aim of CBPR is to combine knowledge and action to create positive and lasting social change. With its origins in psychology, sociology, and critical pedagogy, CBPR has become a common research approach in the fields of public health, medicine, and nursing. Although it is well aligned with psychology's ethical principles and research aims, it has not been widely implemented in psychology research. The present article introduces CBPR to a general psychology audience while considering the unique aims of and challenges in conducting psychology research. In this article, we define CBPR principles, differentiate it from a more traditional psychology research approach, retrace its historical roots, provide concrete steps for its implementation, discuss its potential benefits, and explore practical and ethical challenges for its integration into psychology research. Finally, we provide a case study of CBPR in psychology to illustrate its key constructs and implementation. In sum, CBPR is a relevant, important, and promising research framework that may guide the implementation of more effective, culturally appropriate, socially just, and sustainable community-based psychology research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Utilizing a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach is a potentially effective strategy for exploring the development, implementation, and evaluation of HIV interventions in African American churches. This CBPR-guided study describes a church-based HIV awareness and screening intervention (Taking It to the Pews [TIPS]) that fully involved African American church leaders in all phases of the research project. Findings from the implementation and evaluation phases indicated that church leaders delivered TIPS Tool Kit activities on an ongoing basis (about twice a month) over a 9-month period. TIPS church members were highly exposed to TIPS activities (e.g., 91% reported receiving HIV educational brochures, 84% heard a sermon about HIV). Most (87%) believed that the church should talk about HIV, and 77% believed that the church should offer HIV screening. These findings suggest that implementing an HIV intervention in Black church settings is achievable, particularly when a CBPR approach is used.

Background Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) are more prevalent among homeless individuals than in the general population, and homeless individuals are disproportionately affected by alcohol-related morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, abstinence-based approaches are neither desirable to nor highly effective for most members of this population. Recent research has indicated that homeless people aspire to clinically significant recovery goals beyond alcohol abstinence, including alcohol harm reduction and quality-of-life improvement. However, no research has documented this population’s preferred pathways toward self-defined recovery. Considering principles of patient-centred care, a richer understanding of this population’s desired pathways to recovery may help providers better engage and support them. Methods Participants (N = 50) had lived experience of homelessness and AUDs and participated in semi-structured interviews regarding histories of homelessness, alcohol use, and abstinence-based treatment as well as suggestions for improving alcohol treatment. Conventional content analysis was used to ascertain participants’ perceptions of abstinence-based treatment and mutual-help modalities, while it additionally revealed alternative pathways to recovery. Results Most participants reported involvement in abstinence-based modalities for reasons other than the goal of achieving long-term abstinence from alcohol (e.g., having shelter in winter months, “taking a break” from alcohol use, being among “like-minded people”). In contrast, most participants preferred alternative pathways to recovery, including fulfilling basic needs (e.g., obtaining housing), using harm reduction approaches (e.g., switching from higher to lower alcohol content beverages), engaging in meaningful activities (e.g., art, outings, spiritual/cultural activities), and making positive social connections. Conclusions Most people with the lived experience of homelessness and AUDs we interviewed were uninterested in abstinence-based modalities as a means of attaining long-term alcohol abstinence. These individuals do, however, have creative ideas about alternative pathways to recovery that treatment providers may support to reduce alcohol-related harm and enhance quality of life.