A Community-Based Participatory Research Process in a Poor Swedish Neighbourhood

Academic practice–policy partnerships for health promotion research: Experiences from three research programs

“…using this approach, the review focuses on exploring the impact of participatory processes or cogovernance on research processes and outcomes. In-depth studies, including two doctoral dissertations [36,37], and published papers [see, e.g., [38][39][40][41] One doctoral dissertation [42] and research papers [see, for example, [43][44][45][46] Nine research studies and two meta-analytic studies, a family guide and a book in Swedish [47], and presentations at national and international conferences…”

The Los Angeles Healthy Community Neighborhood Initiative: A Ten Year Experience in Building and Sustaining a Successful Community-Academic Partnership

“…The HCNI team built upon this foundation by incorporating five key themes for building and sustaining the partnership: trust, transparency, equity and fairness, need for adequate resources and importance of developing protocols. These mirrored the four themes of accepting different levels of participation in different phases, openly discuss mutual expectations, unmasking power and authority and allow the work to take the necessary time reported by Fröding and colleagues for using a CBPR approach to increase participation of community-academic partnerships to improve health and well-being in poor neighborhoods [16]. Lastly, we identified challenges and barriers to building and sustaining a partnership.…”

“…Transparency among the partners helped to promote sensitivity to salient outcomes for each partner, such as publications, presentations, and academic promotion for academic partners and capacity needs for community partners. Resonant with the findings of Fröding et al, [16] there were concerns that power differentials between individuals at the table might impede discussions about issues within the partnership and an additional concern that different communication styles might contribute to separate discussions among partner members who did not feel comfortable approaching some members of the group. To address these concerns, the partners developed a shared leadership and peer governance structure that encouraged all participants to voice their opinions and to question each other's assumptions respectfully in a manner similar to that described by Jones et al [36].…”

“…The idea of community and academia partnering in the research process leads to the need for a better understanding how to build and sustain such partnerships. There are several examples in the literature of "how to" build a Community-Academic Partnership (CAP) [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17], but developing effective CAPs is challenging [18], and the steps to build and sustain these CAPs have not been well documented. Most reports of CAPs have instead focused on discussing accomplishments [19][20][21][22], while a few studies have reported on selected elements of successful collaborations, such as building trust and team-building activities [23,24].…”

Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer

“…Team members heard the same information about scientific methods and breast cancer science, both learning new science and methodology, and were able to discuss and find alignment in their understanding of their research. In addition, as Fording also found, guiding teams to openly discuss each partner’s needs and expectations, as well as factors leading to differential power and authority and ways to address these imbalances, improved power dynamics [40].…”