Rural Embedded Assistants for Community Health (REACH) Network: First‐Person Accounts in a Community–University Partnership

Abstract

Community research and action projects undertaken by community-university partnerships can lead to contextually appropriate and sustainable community improvements in rural and urban localities. However, effective implementation is challenging and prone to failure when poorly executed. The current paper seeks to inform rural community-university partnership practice through consideration of first-person accounts from five stakeholders in the Rural Embedded Assistants for Community Health (REACH) Network. The REACH Network is a unique community-university partnership aimed at improving rural health services by identifying, implementing, and evaluating innovative health interventions delivered by local caregivers. The first-person accounts provide an insider’s perspective on the nature of collaboration. The unique perspectives identify three critical challenges facing the REACH Network: trust, coordination, and sustainability. Through consideration of the challenges, we identified several strategies for success. We hope readers can learn their own lessons when considering the details of our partnership’s efforts to improve the delivery infrastructure for rural healthcare.

Community-based participatory research through virtual communities

“…However, for the group members located outside of Houston area, interaction is primarily virtual. Recognizing that it can be difficult to develop trusting relationships, which are critical to successful CBPR processes (Brown et al, 2013), the group had an in-person retreat at the beginning of the project. Additional in-person meetings occurred approximately annually.…”

New Opportunities

“…A First Person Account usually consists of an integrative Introduction and Discussion that bookends narratives from collaborating authors, thus providing a "360" window into the diverse and situated perspectives of various stakeholders engaged in community research and action. A few examples are: Brown et al (2013), Case et al (2014), Jason (2012) and Smith et al (2014).…”

A University Partnership for Victim Service Professional Development: Model Standards for Serving Victims and Survivors of Crime

“…Such partnerships have distinct advantages over top-down decision-making via engagement of those who will be affected by changes, rendering policies and practices more contextually relevant and sustainable (Bellamy, Bledsoe, Mullen, Fang, & Manuel, 2008;Brown et al, 2013). Given the controversies and debates surrounding implementation of victim service standards, we felt that a university partner could serve as a neutral facilitator, informing efforts through research on existing practices, as well as bridging perspectives and providing a safe space for difficult discussions.…”

“…scholarship, methodological expertise, and research staff), combined with community partners' knowledge of practice and real-world settings, provide unique opportunities to advance translational research and practice. The relationships and trust developed through such partnershipsparticularly as modeled by leaders in the field-can cultivate a context of cooperation and commitment to set the foundation for future work (Brown et al, 2013). Visible partnerships between researchers and practitioners may be important motivators in encouraging prospective users to adopt innovative models (Bellamy et al, 2008).…”