Process and outcome constructs for evaluating community-based participatory research projects: a matrix of existing measures

Abstract

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been widely used in public health research in the last decade as an approach to develop culturally centered interventions and collaborative research processes in which communities are directly involved in the construction and implementation of these interventions and in other application of findings. Little is known, however, about CBPR pathways of change and how these academic-community collaborations may contribute to successful outcomes. A new health CBPR conceptual model (Wallerstein N, Oetzel JG, Duran B et al. CBPR: What predicts outcomes? In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N (eds). Communication Based Participatory Research, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Co., 2008) suggests that relationships between four components: context, group dynamics, the extent of community-centeredness in intervention and/or research design and the impact of these participatory processes on CBPR system change and health outcomes. This article seeks to identify instruments and measures in a comprehensive literature review that relates to these distinct components of the CBPR model and to present them in an organized and indexed format for researcher use. Specifically, 258 articles were identified in a review of CBPR (and related) literature from 2002 to 2008. Based on this review and from recommendations of a national advisory board, 46 CBPR instruments were identified and each was reviewed and coded using the CBPR logic model. The 46 instruments yielded 224 individual measures of characteristics in the CBPR model. While this study does not investigate the quality of the instruments, it does provide information about reliability and validity for specific measures. Group dynamics proved to have the largest number of identified measures, while context and CBPR system and health outcomes had the least. Consistent with other summaries of instruments, such as Granner and Sharpe's inventory (Granner ML, Sharpe PA. Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools. Health Educ Res 2004; 19: 514-32), validity and reliability information were often lacking, and one or both were only available for 65 of the 224 measures. This summary of measures provides a place to start for new and continuing partnerships seeking to evaluate their progress.

The journey and destination need to be intentional: Perceptions of success in community-academic research partnerships

“…Many quantitative instruments for measuring coalition functioning and group dynamics in community-academic research partnerships are available (Granner & Sharpe 2004;Sandoval et al 2012) and calls have been made for the use of qualitative methods as well (Sandoval et al 2012). Yet, participants in this evaluation at the start of a partnership can empower group members to express and examine concerns as the work progresses (Fetterman 1996;Schulz, Israel & Lantz 2003) in order to thwart the building of tensions.…”

“…Regardless, efforts to continue the advancement of community-academic research approaches necessitate further examination of the interaction between partnership processes and outcomes (Brugge et al 2010;Hicks et al 2012;Lucero et al 2016;. Furthermore, the complexity of outcomes in partnered research warrants the use of qualitative methods in addition to quantitative methods (El Ansari & Weiss 2006;Lucero et al 2016;Sandoval et al 2012). …”

Sharing Experiences and Expertise: The Health Care Systems Research Network Workshop on Patient Engagement in Research

“…Workshop participants noted numerous potential gains from engaging patients in research, including: increased relevance, applicability and credibility of research; personcentered recruitment and retention approaches; greater cultural sensitivity including attentiveness to hard-to-reach populations; accountability of research organizations; patient satisfaction and empowerment; reciprocal understanding and trust between researchers and patients/stakeholders; more effective and Facilitators also summarized four relevant instruments and indicators during the workshop: 1) PCORI's Ways of Engaging -Engagement Activity Tool (WE-ENACT), 12 2) The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and Public (GRIPP) checklist, 13 3) a National Health Service study by Boote et al on successful consumer involvement in research, 14 and 4) an evaluation of community-based participatory research projects by Sandoval et al 15 Unfortunately, literature on the use of these frameworks and measures is limited. Moreover, while all have potential utility --as each is thorough, encourages research teams to build ongoing assessment into studies and emphasizes patient partner empowerment --they also are relatively complicated, time-consuming and resource-intensive.…”

Physicians as Part of the Solution? Community-Based Participatory Research as a Way to Get Shared Decision Making into Practice

“…20 A recent systematic review of CBPR methods provided an interactive logic model that profiled the available evidence about how the method achieved its impacts. 21 Evidence showed that CBPR successfully linked communities with campuses (i.e., research institutions) and served as a useful example for hospital and health organizations seeking collaboration with both local communities and research institutions. 22 A study of self-care dialysis found that care pathways were easier to implement and more effective when patients were included in the development of the implementation approach.…”