A Systematic Literature Review of Community-Based Participatory Health Research with Sexual and Gender Minority Communities

Abstract

Purpose: The objective was to review sexual and gender minority (SGM) health research studies to gain an understanding of how the community-based participatory research (CBPR) framework has been operationalized. Methods: We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to conduct a review of all SGM health research studies published in the past 10 years that cited a CBPR approach (PROSPERO Registration No. CRD42016036608). CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched in October 2020. Dimensions of community involvement (e.g., shared decision-making; flexibility to community needs and priorities) and the strength of evidence for each dimension were rated using guidance from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality. Results: The 48 eligible articles identified reported a range of 0–11 (out of 13) community elements. Seven studies reported zero elements. Qualitative studies ( n =28; 58.3%) had an average quality score of 2.32 (range: 1.43–2.5). The 15 (31.3%) cross-sectional studies had an average quality score of 2.08 (range: 1.64–2.27). Conclusion: Adhering to the CBPR framework is challenging. The benefits of striving toward its principles, however, can move us toward transformative and sustainable social change within SGM communities.

To Whom It May Affirm: Considerations for Advancing LGBTQIA+ Equity in Research

“…Other leaders in this space have likewise advocated for LGBTQIA+ research projects led by and conducted in partnership with LGBTQIA+ individuals, especially community members who will be participating in the research, by reimagining the dynamic of a research team through this lens (Kronk et al, 2022;Streed et al, 2023). This might involve intentional power-sharing with these communities throughout the research process and at decision-making stages to influence the direction of the research and facilitate bidirectional learning (Moseson et al, 2020;Muhammad et al, 2015;Ricks et al, 2022;We All Count, 2021). When conducting this work, it is crucial to ensure that LGBTQIA+ community members, leaders, and researchers are adequately supported, compensated, and recognized for their labor, given the emotional vulnerability that often accompanies LGBTQIA+ research (Hwang et al, 2022).…”

“…LGBTQIA+ researchers to identify which research questions, definitions, measures, and analyses are most meaningful and provide the best insight into the underlying mechanisms that contribute to disparate outcomes (Hwang et al, 2022;Ricks et al, 2022;Streed et al, 2023;Venkateswaran et al, 2023;We All Count, 2021). As identities are inherently personal, different audiences and cultures may understand, experience, and express LGBTQIA+ identities differently.…”

“…As identities are inherently personal, different audiences and cultures may understand, experience, and express LGBTQIA+ identities differently. As a result, it is important for researchers to consider the various contexts of communities participating in the research and the factors that may influence participants' understanding of SOGII (Ricks et al, 2022). Community members may have insights into the nuances of how individuals perceive and define identities, and as such, can help craft language and methods that will be easily interpretable, celebrate community identities, and have practical implications for research findings (Anderson & Mastri, 2021;Leung & Flanagan, 2019).…”

“…Community-based methods can also be meaningful ways to share and apply research findings that benefit directly impacted individuals, rather than solely presenting and interpreting findings in academic contexts (Hwang et al, 2022;Ricks et 2022; Streed et al, 2023;Vaughn et al, 2013). For example, in one CBPR project conducted in North Carolina, a group of community members and researchers held interviews with other community members and organizations to identify their priorities and codesign an intervention to address disparities among young gay people, bisexual people, other men who have sex with men, 3 and transgender women (Mann-Jackson et al, 2021).…”

Changing language, changes lives: Learning the lexicon of LGBTQ+ health equity

“…The specific subgroup identities under study should also be reflected in community engagement efforts (e.g., a study on trans men should include trans men and transmasculine community members in the research process). Academic institutions and funding agencies play an important role in supporting these research methods to allow investigators to overcome structural challenges in meaningful community engagement such as allowing community members to be co‐investigators with equal compensation and power to determine what research questions are prioritized (Aguilar‐Gaxiola et al, 2022; Ricks et al, 2022). Researchers also play a role in influencing institutions and agencies to support equitable and community‐engaged research practices (Lett et al, 2022; Scott et al, 2020).…”