Finding solutions to challenges faced in community-based participatory research between academic and community organizations

Abstract

Partnerships between communities and academic institutions have been vital in addressing complex health and psychosocial issues faced by culturally diverse and hard-to-reach populations. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been suggested as a strategy to develop trust and build on the strengths of partners from various settings to address significant health issues, particularly those persistent health issues that reveal disparities among minority populations. There have been many challenges to developing these partnerships in the United States. The purpose of this paper is to discuss approaches and solutions used by this research team in response to the challenges they have faced in using CBPR. The team uses CBPR to understand and support the process of disclosure of intimate partner violence (IPV) within the context of the community health centers that provide services for multicultural and multi-lingual populations. While CBPR provides a route to develop trust and build on the strengths of partners from various settings, there are multiple challenges that arise when partnering organizations present with different infrastructures, missions, resources and populations served. Examples of common challenges and solutions from the literature and from the team's experience will be discussed. Implications for partners, partnerships, practice and research will be explored.

Challenges of Conducting Community-Based Participatory Research in Boston’s Neighborhoods to Reduce Disparities in Asthma

“…[4][5][6][7] We recognize the many definitions of Bcommunity^employed in academic-community partnerships and concur that they are most often very much contextual and each project must have its own approach for defining its community of focus and determining how best to include them in their CBPR effort. We also recognize the varying levels of community involvement in research partnerships and follow the definition of CBPR contained in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence report for the purposes of this article, accepting it as a model for improving research quality, enhancing community capacity and improving health outcomes.…”

Extending collaborations for knowledge translation: lessons from the community-based participatory research literature

“…One 'essential' facilitator that emerged from the analysis was the joint development of this infrastructure (Israel et al, 1998;Eisinger and Senturia, 2001;Israel et al, 2005;Macaulay et al, 1999). It was found that the process of consultation and collaboration required a set of guidelines to serve as reference points to facilitate dispute resolution, and joint actions (Higgins and Metzler, 2001;Ammerman et al, 2003;English et al, 2004;Gray, Fitch, Davis and Phillips, 2000;Shoultz et al, 2006). Infrastructure development included setting priorities; specific plans of action; and setting terms related to the ownership of results (Israel et al, 1998;Fisher and Ball, 2005;Israel et al, 2005;Minkler, 2004), how meetings are conducted, and how decisions are made (Higgins and Metzler, 2001;Yoo et al, 2004).…”

Engaging evaluation research: Reflecting on the process of sexual assault/domestic violence protocol evaluation research

“…Secret, Abell and Berlin (2011, p. 9) concur that little has been written about collaboration strategies that can guide a practice research team through the research process. It is to this particular context that our case study contributes (see Shoultz et al 2006;Secret, Abell & Berlin 2011).…”