Partnership Among Peers: Lessons Learned From the Development of a Community Organization–Academic Research Training Program

Abstract

Background Community engagement and rigorous science are necessary to address health issues. Increasingly, community health organizations are asked to partner in research. To strengthen such community organization–academic partnerships, increase research capacity in community organizations, and facilitate equitable partnered research, the Partners in Education Evaluation and Research (PEER) program was developed. The program implements an 18-month structured research curriculum for one mid-level employee of a health-focused community-based organization with an organizational mentor and a Case Western Reserve University faculty member as partners. Methods The PEER program was developed and guided by a community–academic advisory committee and was designed to impact the research capacity of organizations through didactic modules and partnered research in the experiential phase. Active participation of community organizations and faculty during all phases of the program provided for bidirectional learning and understanding of the challenges of community-engaged health research. The pilot program evaluation used qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques, including experiences of the participants assessed through surveys, formal group and individual interviews, phone calls, and discussions. Statistical analysis of the change in fellows’ pre-test and post-test survey scores were conducted using paired sample t tests. The small sample size is recognized by the authors as a limitation of the evaluation methods and would potentially be resolved by including more cohort data as the program progresses. Qualitative data were reviewed by two program staff using content and narrative analysis to identify themes, describe and assess group phenomena and determine program improvements. Objectives The objective of PEER is to create equitable partnerships between community organizations and academic partners to further research capacity in said organizations and develop mutually beneficial research partnerships between academia and community organizations. Conclusion PEER demonstrates a commitment to successfully developing sustainable research capacity growth in community organizations, and improved partnered research with academic institutions.

A systematic review of components of community-based organisation engagement

“…High variability was found during critical appraisal of case studies, with scores ranging from 1 to 10 (Akintobi et al., ; Caldwell et al., ; Chaskin, Goerge, Skyles, & Guiltinan, ; Darling et al., ; LoConte, Weeth‐Feinstein, Conlon, & Scott, ; McFarlane, Kahili, & Johnson, ; Napoles et al., ; Panapasa et al., ; Singer et al., ). Five studies met all the criteria (Chaskin et al., ; Darling et al., ; Gainforth, Latimer‐Cheung, Moore, Athanasopoulos, & Martin Ginis, ; Jewett‐Tennant et al., ; Woodruff et al., ). Points were deducted from case studies that did not describe the methods, analysis and results for the project itself (Caldwell et al., ; Panapasa et al., ; Singer et al., ; Tisnado et al., ).…”

“…The remaining studies included quantitative design (Bloom et al, 2009;Chandra et al, 2013;Geist, 2010;Glik et al, 2014;Goytia et al, 2013;Patterson et al, 2011); qualitative design (Boutain & McNees, 2013;Burkhalter et al, 2013;Collignon, Men, & Tan, 2001;Honeycutt et al, 2015;Johnson et al, 2006;Radermacher, Karunarathna, Grace, & Feldman, 2011;Taras et al, 2015); systematic review (Frew et al, 2014); and mixed-method design (Houston et al, 2002;Kakietek et al, 2013;Kelaher et al, 2014 High variability was found during critical appraisal of case studies, with scores ranging from 1 to 10 (Akintobi et al, 2012;Caldwell et al, 2015;Chaskin, Goerge, Skyles, & Guiltinan, 2006;Darling et al, 2015;LoConte, Weeth-Feinstein, Conlon, & Scott, 2013;McFarlane, Kahili, & Johnson, 2014;Napoles et al, 2014;Panapasa et al, 2012;Singer et al, 2015). Five studies met all the criteria (Chaskin et al, 2006;Darling et al, 2015;Gainforth, Latimer-Cheung, Moore, Athanasopoulos, & Martin Ginis, 2015;Jewett-Tennant et al, 2016;Woodruff et al, 2016). Points were deducted from case studies that did not describe the methods, analysis and results for the project itself (Caldwell et al, 2015;Panapasa et al, 2012;Singer et al, 2015;Tisnado et al, 2010).…”

“…The need for the community-academic partnership between CBOs and researchers provides the foundation for engagement and an assessment of the readiness of the CBO for said engagement (Akintobi et al, 2012;Woodruff et al, 2016). CBOs engage when they possess a clear understanding and are in consensus with stakeholders, regarding the aims of the proposed research projects and its benefits to the target community (Akintobi et al, 2012;Gainforth et al, 2015;Jewett-Tennant et al, 2016;Johnson et al, 2006). The roles, rights and responsibilities of the members of the partnership are also specified, clarified and verbalised, when the need for a partnership or project is identified (Bloom et al, 2009;Caldwell et al, 2015;Chaskin et al, 2006;Jewett-Tennant et al, 2016;Johnson et al, 2006;Laborde et al, 2007;LoConte et al, 2013;McFarlane et al, 2014;Napoles et al, 2014).…”

“…CBOs engage when they possess a clear understanding and are in consensus with stakeholders, regarding the aims of the proposed research projects and its benefits to the target community (Akintobi et al, 2012;Gainforth et al, 2015;Jewett-Tennant et al, 2016;Johnson et al, 2006). The roles, rights and responsibilities of the members of the partnership are also specified, clarified and verbalised, when the need for a partnership or project is identified (Bloom et al, 2009;Caldwell et al, 2015;Chaskin et al, 2006;Jewett-Tennant et al, 2016;Johnson et al, 2006;Laborde et al, 2007;LoConte et al, 2013;McFarlane et al, 2014;Napoles et al, 2014). Need for community-academic partnerships has been previously established by dialogues between leaders in CBOs and stakeholder institutions (Akintobi et al, 2012;Boutain & McNees, 2013;Burkhalter et al, 2013;Tisnado et al, 2010).…”

What Critical Ethical Values Guide Strategic Planning Processes in Health Care Organizations?

“…Dr. Toftle must also anticipate that in a single task force, members lower in the medical hierarchy would remain at risk of testimonial injustice. To counter this possible injustice, she might require that all task force members undergo interprofessional or community-based participatory training, such as that offered at the authors' institution [11,12] and has been advocated as a way of enhancing research capacity [11][12][13]. Such training might also reduce biases that lead to unfair exclusion of some voices.…”