Objective Heat exposure is an important hazard for workers in manual occupations, including farmworkers. This analysis delineates the prevalence of heat illness among farmworkers, and the factors associated with heat illness. Methods North Carolina Latino male farmworkers completed interviews in August, 2013. They reported on heat exposure and behaviors over the previous 3 months while working both outdoors and indoors. Results A third (35.6%) of the participants reported heat illness while working outside, and 13.9% while working inside. Factors associated with heat illness while working outside included working in wet clothes and shoes, harvesting and topping tobacco, and spending after-work time in an extremely hot house. Conclusions Policy addressing heat illness is needed, as is more detailed research on occupational heat exposure that uses common measures.

This analysis describes the nature of community participation in National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects, and explores the scientific and social implications of variation in community participation. We conducted in-depth interviews in 2012 with professional and community researchers from 25 CBPR projects in the Southeast US. Interview topics focused on participants' experiences with the nature and conduct of their CBPR project. Projects were rated on community participation in 13 components of research. Projects varied substantially in community participation. Some projects had community participation in only two to three components; others had participation in every component. Some professional researchers were deliberate in their inclusion of community participation in all aspects of research, others had community participation in some aspects, and others were mainly concerned that community members had the opportunity to participate in the study. Findings suggest a need for a standardized rubric for community-based research that facilitates delineation of approaches and procedures that are effective and efficient. Little actual community participation may also result in negative social impacts for communities.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has become essential in health disparities and environmental justice research; however, the scientific integrity of CBPR projects has become a concern. Some concerns, such as appropriate research training, lack of access to resources and finances, have been discussed as possibly limiting the scientific integrity of a project. Prior to understanding what threatens scientific integrity in CBPR, it is vital to understand what scientific integrity means for the professional and community investigators who are involved in CBPR. This analysis explores the interpretation of scientific integrity in CBPR among 74 professional and community research team members from of 25 CBPR projects in nine states in the southeastern United States in 2012. It describes the basic definition for scientific integrity and then explores variations in the interpretation of scientific integrity in CBPR. Variations in the interpretations were associated with team member identity as professional or community investigators. Professional investigators understood scientific integrity in CBPR as either conceptually or logistically flexible, as challenging to balance with community needs, or no different than traditional scientific integrity. Community investigators interpret other factors as important in scientific integrity, such as trust, accountability, and overall benefit to the community. This research demonstrates that the variations in the interpretation of scientific integrity in CBPR call for a new definition of scientific integrity in CBPR that takes into account the understanding and needs of all investigators.

Scientific integrity is necessary for strong science; yet many variables can influence scientific integrity. In traditional research, some common threats are the pressure to publish, competition for funds, and career advancement. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides a different context for scientific integrity with additional and unique concerns. Understanding the perceptions that promote or discourage scientific integrity in CBPR as identified by professional and community investigators is essential to promoting the value of CBPR. This analysis explores the perceptions that facilitate scientific integrity in CBPR as well as the barriers among a sample of 74 professional and community CBPR investigators from 25 CBPR projects in nine states in the southeastern United States in 2012. There were variations in perceptions associated with team member identity as professional or community investigators. Perceptions identified to promote and discourage scientific integrity in CBPR by professional and community investigators were external pressures, community participation, funding, quality control and supervision, communication, training, and character and trust. Some perceptions such as communication and training promoted scientific integrity whereas other perceptions, such as a lack of funds and lack of trust could discourage scientific integrity. These results demonstrate that one of the most important perceptions in maintaining scientific integrity in CBPR is active community participation, which enables a co-responsibility by scientists and community members to provide oversight for scientific integrity. Credible CBPR science is crucial to empower the vulnerable communities to be heard by those in positions of power and policy making.