Critical Reflections on the Role of CBPR Within an RCT Community Health Worker Prevention Intervention

Abstract

Coalescence of culturally relevant and community-based research with traditional scientific inquiry is necessary for the translation of science into practice. One methodology that has been identified as an important missing link in achieving the goal of combining science and community practice is the community-based participatory research approach, or CBPR. To demonstrate how CBPR has been successfully blended with randomized control trial (RCT) methodology, we showcase a randomized community trial that has shown efficacy in reducing cardiovascular risk factors integrating community health workers. The purpose of this article is 2-fold. First, it describes the process of merging the CBPR approach within an RCT framework and, second, it describes lessons learned in conducting CBPR-RCT research initiatives.

Community health worker intervention to improve tooth brushing in young children: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial

“…The specific role of CHWs in oral health requires additional investigation, especially for young children who are establishing their first oral health behaviours. Recognizing CHW influences at multiple levels, not just the individual, and using a community‐based participatory research approach in this future research will enhance understanding of the practical utility of CHWs in oral health 9,38 …”

Partnering with insiders: A review of peer models across community-engaged research, education and social care

“…With the inclusion of peers, research can be more relevant to addressing community needs while at the same time maintaining the rigour and quality of scientific research (Balazs & Morello‐Frosch, ). Incorporating the voice of community peers is integral to both “good” science and sustainable social change (Rosenthal et al., ; Vaughn et al., ). Traditional research models using a vertical, deficit and “pathogen‐focused” approach have had limited success because they fail to engage the local knowledge, norms and sociocultural, historical, political, economic and ecological contexts of the very people to whom the research, programme or intervention is targeted (Person et al., ).…”

A culture of care: How Lotus House Women's Shelter heals program participants through genuineness, space, high expectations, dignity, individualized attention, and community

“…Our research followed a community‐based participatory research model (CBPR; Vaughn et al, 2018 ) in which Lotus House community members, including leadership and former shelter program participants, worked collaboratively and iteratively with the researchers to shape the research questions, methods, measures, and findings, including co‐authoring the current paper. Guided by the assumption that social change is more likely to occur when nonacademic researchers equally participate in the research process, CBPR centers mutual learning, participatory practices, co‐construction of knowledge and action that benefits the target study population and their communities (Baum et al, 2006 ; Israel et al, 2001 ; Rosenthal et al, 2014 ; Vaughn et al, 2018 ). Further, scientific rigor improves when nonacademic researchers have decision‐making and agency to engage across the research process (Baum et al, 2006 ; Newell & South, 2009 ; Vaughn et al, 2018 ), congruent with the scientific principle of critical multiplism (Shadish, 1993 ).…”