Dataset Information

Building the foundation for equitable and inclusive research: Seed grant programs to facilitate development of diverse CBPR community-academic research partnerships.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.

Methods

Since 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community-academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods.

Results

From 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community-academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding.

Conclusions

Keys to success included participation as community-academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community-academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community-academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.

SUBMITTER: Coombe CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9879886 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Building the foundation for equitable and inclusive research: Seed grant programs to facilitate development of diverse CBPR community-academic research partnerships.

Coombe Chris M CM Simbeni Sophia S Neal Aaron A Allen Alex J AJ Gray Carol C Guzman J Ricardo JR Lichtenstein Richard L RL Marsh Erica E EE Piechowski Patricia P Reyes Angela G AG Rowe Zachary Z Weinert Julia J Israel Barbara A BA

Journal of clinical and translational science 20221124 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>The effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.<h4>Me ...[more]

PMID: 36755548

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAcademic health centres (AHCs) are complex organisations often defined by their 'tripartite' mission: to achieve high standards of clinical care, undertake clinical and laboratory research and educate health professionals. In the last decade, AHCs have moved away from what was a dominant focus on high impact (clinical) interventions for individuals, towards a more population-oriented paradigm requiring networked institutions and responsiveness to a range of issues including distribution of health outcomes and health determinants. Reflective of this paradigm shift is a growing interest in the role of AHCs in addressing health disparities and improving health system equity. This protocol outlines a systematic review that seeks to synthesise and critically appraise the current state of evidence on the role of AHCs in contributing to equitable health systems locally and globally.Methods and analysisElectronic searches will be conducted on a pilot list of bibliographic databases, including Google Scholar, Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, ERIC, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, Campbell Library and A+ Education, from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2016. Apart from studies reporting clinical interventions or trials, all types of published peer-reviewed and grey literature will be included in the review. The single screening method will be employed in selecting studies, with two additional reviewers consulted where allocation is unclear. Quality and relevance appraisal utilising Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools will follow data extraction to a preprepared template. Thematic synthesis will be undertaken to develop descriptive themes and inform analysis.Ethics and disseminationAs the review is focused on the analysis of secondary data, it does not require ethics approval. The results of the study will be disseminated through articles in peer-reviewed journals and trade publications as well as presentations at relevant national and international conferences. Results will be further disseminated through networks and associations of AHCs.Protocol registrationInternational Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) number CRD42016051802.

Project description:BackgroundPartnerships between academic institutions and public care agencies (public-academic partnerships [PAPs]) can promote effective policy making and care delivery. Public care agencies are often engaged in PAPs for evidence-informed policy making in health care. Previous research has reported essential partnership contextual factors and mechanisms that promote evidence-based policy making and practice in health care. However, the studies have not yet informed whether public care agency leaders' and academic researchers' perceptions of partnership purpose formulation and coalition building evolve through the PAP life cycle and whether public care agency leaders' use of research evidence differs through life cycle stages.ObjectiveThis exploratory study aims to focus on PAPs designed to improve youth mental health and well-being outcomes. This study also aims to identify public care agency leaders' and academic researchers' perceptions of PAP purpose formulation (structure, goals, primary function, and agenda-setting process) and coalition building (mutual benefits, trust, convener's role, member role clarity, and conflict management) by PAP life cycle stage and examine whether public care agency leaders' use of research evidence differs according to the perception of PAP purpose formulation and coalition building through the PAP life cycle.MethodsA web-based survey of PAP experience was conducted by recruiting academic researchers (n=40) and public care agency leaders (n=26) who were engaged in PAPs for the past 10 years. Public care agency leaders additionally participated in the survey of the Structured Interview for Evidence Use scale (n=48).ResultsMost public care agency leaders and academic researchers in PAPs formed, matured, and sustained perceived their PAP as having purpose formulation context well aligned with their organizational purpose formulation context, pursuing mutual benefits, having leadership representation and role clarity, having a higher level of trust, and knowing how to handle conflicts. Most PAPs across all life cycle stages crystallized another issue to focus, but not all PAPs with issue crystallization had purpose reformulation. Public care agency leaders who trusted academic researchers in their PAP had greater use of research evidence. Public care agency leaders in PAPs that had gone through new issue crystallization also showed greater use of research evidence compared with those that had not.ConclusionsTo promote public care agency leaders' use of research evidence, focusing on developing trusting partnerships and continuously crystallizing PAP issues are important.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/14382.

Project description:Equitable health research requires actively engaging communities in producing new knowledge to advocate for their health needs. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) relies on the coproduction of contextual and grounded knowledge between researchers, programme implementers and community partners with the aim of catalysing action for change. Improving coproduction competencies can support research quality and validity. Yet, frameworks and guidance highlighting the ideal competencies and conditions needed for all research partners to contribute meaningfully and equitably are lacking. This paper aims to advance CBPR by laying out seven core competencies and conditions that can promote power sharing in knowledge production, application and dissemination at the individual, community, organisational and systems levels.Competencies were developed through an iterative process, that synthesised pre-existing literature and frameworks with a wide range of tacit knowledge from researchers, activists, implementation partners and community researchers from Bangladesh, India, Kenya, Sierra Leone and the UK.The seven core competencies and conditions are: (1) capacity to interpret and respond to individual and relational identity, connection, uniqueness and inequities; (2) ability of communities and partners to work in the most suitable, inclusive and synergistic way; (3) aptitude for generating safe and inclusive spaces for multidirectional knowledge and skills exchange that goes beyond the research focus; (4) expertise in democratic leadership and/or facilitation to balance competing priorities and ensure shared decision-making; (5) capacity to analyse readiness for action, successes and areas for improvements throughout the research process; (6) ability to instigate sustainable change processes within the political dimensions of systems, policies and practices using advocacy, lobbying or activism approaches and (7) skills to interpret and disseminate findings and outputs that are understandable, respectful and promote community ownership. We present core competency and condition areas, individual and collective expertise associated with competencies, likely outcomes, examples of activities and sources of evidence.

Dataset Information

Building the foundation for equitable and inclusive research: Seed grant programs to facilitate development of diverse CBPR community-academic research partnerships.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Building the foundation for equitable and inclusive research: Seed grant programs to facilitate development of diverse CBPR community-academic research partnerships.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets