Developing Community Partner Training: Regulations and Relationships

Solomon, Stephanie; Piechowski, Patricia

doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.23

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future public-domain HSPT programs that are designed specifically for community partners in CBPR relationships (that maintain rigorous content) may provide an even more efficient starting point for local adaptation 7 . However, we found that the success of HSPT lies not in the content, but in the implementation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceived Impact of Human Subjects Protection Training on Community Partners in Community-Based Participatory Research

Hawley¹,

Wieland²,

Weis³

et al. 2014

cpr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Human subject protection training (HSPT) is a requirement of Institutional Review Boards for individuals who engage in research. The lack of HSPT among community partners may contribute to power imbalance between community and academic members of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships. The Rochester Healthy Community Partnership (RHCP) is an established CBPR partnership in Minnesota who works primarily with immigrant and refugee populations. Objective To describe the implementation and evaluation of HSPT among community members of a CBPR partnership. Methods Seven community partners participated in HSPT through adaptation of an existing institutional program. Evaluation of program acceptability was measured through a 5-item survey (5-point Likert scales). A focus group with all 7 participants was conducted to evaluate impact of training on perceptions of research, characteristics of a successful program, and potential value of training to CBPR partnerships. Coding and inductive analysis were done on the transcript with NVIVO-9 software. Results The HSPT program was highly acceptable (mean score= 4.5 ± 0.2). Focus groups revealed that training implementation should be done as a cohesive group with the opportunity to discuss concepts as they pertain to partnership projects. Training fostered an encouraging and safe environment, accommodated diverse learning styles, and promoted interaction. Participants reported improved trust in research as a result of the training. Perceived impact of the training on the CBPR partnership included improved transparency and enhanced camaraderie while establishing essential knowledge required for community leaders. Conclusions HSPT is feasible among community members of a CBPR partnership, and may improve perceptions of research while strengthening capacity of partnerships to impact community health.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent publication suggests that a collaborate partnership is in the process of evaluating a HSPT program targeting community members engaged in research that may serve as a model for CBPR partnerships in the future 7 . In this study, we describe the implementation of an existing HSPT program by an established CBPR partnership.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Impact of Human Subjects Protection Training on Community Partners in Community-Based Participatory Research

Hawley¹,

Wieland²,

Weis³

et al. 2014

cpr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, a misunderstanding of CEnR may lead an IRB to harbor misgivings about the competencies of community partners and therefore require “more” rather than “more relevant” training (Dolor, Smith, & Neale, 2008; Yawn et al, 2009). This can create administrative burdens for community partners and exacerbate mistrust among all parties (Solomon & Piechowski, 2011). IRBs that are unfamiliar with CEnR may be limited in their ability to assist CEnR teams in tackling ethical problems that emerge during study design (e.g., deciding whether or not to include a control community) or project implementation (e.g., handling potential breaches of confidentiality).…”

Section: Who Needs Research Ethics Education?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Ethics Education for Community-Engaged Research: A Review and Research Agenda

Anderson

Solomon

Heitman

et al. 2012

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Self Cite

106

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community engagement is increasingly becoming an integral part of research. “Community-engaged research” (CEnR) introduces new stakeholders as well as unique challenges to the protection of participants and the integrity of the research process. We—a group of representatives of CTSA-funded institutions and others who share expertise in research ethics and CEnR—have identified gaps in the literature regarding (1) ethical issues unique to CEnR; (2) the particular instructional needs of academic investigators, community research partners, and IRB members; and (3) best practices for teaching research ethics. This paper presents what we know, as well as what we still need to learn, in order to develop quality research ethics educational materials tailored to the full range of stakeholder groups in CEnR.

show abstract

“…9 Training should also ensure that participants are able to apply knowledge in real-world settings to make certain that objectives and learning translate into measurable goals and outcomes. 10 Finally, training should build capacity to ensure a positive benefit relative to the investment of time, cost, and other resources. 11 …”

Section: Aligning the CLI With Community Partners’ Needsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Community Leaders Institute

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An emerging best practice of addressing health and improving health disparities in communities is ensuring that academic health centers (AHCs) are engaged with area schools, primary care practices, and community advocates as equal partners in research, services, and programs. The literature documents the importance of ensuring that academic-community collaboration is based on equity, trust, and respect, and that there is capacity (time and resources) and a shared culture (language, skills, and applied knowledge) for accomplishing mutual goals in academic-community research partnerships. It is also essential that an academic-community collaboration results in tangible and measurable goals and outcomes for both the target community and the AHC. Currently, the models for implementing best practices in community health partnerships, especially training programs, are limited. This paper article summarizes the goals and outcomes for the Community Leaders Institute (CLI), a six-week innovative leadership development training program designed to enhance academic-community research, integrate the interests of community leaders and AHC researchers, and build research capacity and competencies within the community. Based on two years of outcome data, the CLI is achieving its intended goals of engaging faculty as trainer-scholars while promoting academic-community partnerships that align with community and AHC priorities. The training and collaborative research paradigm utilized by the CLI has served to accelerate AHC-community engagement and integration efforts, as CLI graduates are now serving on AHC steering, bioethics, and other committees.

show abstract

Developing Community Partner Training: Regulations and Relationships

Cited by 13 publications

References 9 publications

Perceived Impact of Human Subjects Protection Training on Community Partners in Community-Based Participatory Research

Perceived Impact of Human Subjects Protection Training on Community Partners in Community-Based Participatory Research

Research Ethics Education for Community-Engaged Research: A Review and Research Agenda

The Community Leaders Institute

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About