‘We walked side by side through the whole thing’: A mixed‐methods study of key elements of community‐based participatory research partnerships between rural Aboriginal communities and researchers

Abstract

Objectives To advance the rural practice in working with Aboriginal communities by (a) identifying the extent of community partners' participation in and (b) operationalising the key elements of three community‐based participatory research partnerships between university‐based researchers and Australian rural Aboriginal communities. Design A mixed‐methods study. Quantitative survey and qualitative one‐on‐one interviews with local project implementation committee members and group interviews with other community partners and project documentation. Setting Three rural Aboriginal communities in New South Wales. Participants Thirty‐seven community partners in three community‐based participatory research partnerships of which 22 were members of local project implementation committees and 15 were other community partners who implemented activities. Intervention Community‐based participatory research partnerships to develop, implement and evaluate community‐based responses to alcohol‐related harms. Main outcomes measures Community partners' extent of and experiences with participation in the community‐based participatory research partnership and their involvement in the development and implementation processes. Results Community partners' participation varied between communities and between project phases within communities. Contributing to the community‐based participatory research partnerships were four key elements of the participatory process: unique expertise of researchers and community‐based partners, openness to learn from each other, trust and community leadership. Conclusion To advance the research practice in rural Aboriginal communities, equitable partnerships between Aboriginal community and research partners are encouraged to embrace the unique expertise of the partners, encourage co‐learning and implement community leadership to build trust.

From Digital Mental Health to Digital Social and Emotional Wellbeing: How Indigenous Community-Based Participatory Research Influenced the Australian Government’s Digital Mental Health Agenda

“…First, in line with other researchers, we suggest that a commitment to CBPR practices is the most effective—and perhaps the only—way to achieve outcomes that are truly meaningful and relevant for Indigenous communities [ 27 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. CBPR is an inherently de-colonising research approach, in direct opposition to the kind of ‘top-down’ hierarchical research practices that have previously institutionalised cultural racism [ 16 ].…”

“…The HCP workshop participants provided valuable feedback about digital resources, which furthered the evolution of the training program and, in combination with the Learning Circles’ findings, led to the development of the WellMob website. As other studies have found, it is usually important to have representation of key stakeholders across all project levels from governance to end users, as different skills are needed for different purposes at different points in time in a project [ 27 , 41 ].…”

“…Third, and relatedly, it takes time to build the kind of trusting relationships and understanding which lead to creative thinking and co-learning—one of the hallmarks of best practice CBPR [ 20 , 27 ]. When a community-academic partnership creates co-learning hubs where community and researchers recognise their complementary expertise, they are open to learning from one another [ 27 ].…”

“…Third, and relatedly, it takes time to build the kind of trusting relationships and understanding which lead to creative thinking and co-learning—one of the hallmarks of best practice CBPR [ 20 , 27 ]. When a community-academic partnership creates co-learning hubs where community and researchers recognise their complementary expertise, they are open to learning from one another [ 27 ]. In this project, the community partners’ knowledge and understanding of the local community, Indigenous SEWB perspectives and the HCP workforces were central to the design of the d-SEWB training programs; while the researchers understood the broader context of the government-funded project, knew of available d-SEWB resources and facilitated the research processes.…”

“…Other key elements of CBPR processes have been described in a number of publications [ 19 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]. Evaluation is important to ensure the integrity of these processes.…”