Partnership readiness for community-based participatory research

Abstract

The use of a dyadic lens to assess and leverage academic and community partners' readiness to conduct community-based participatory research (CBPR) has not been systematically investigated. With a lack of readiness to conduct CBPR, the partnership and its products are vulnerable. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the dimensions and key indicators necessary for academic and community partnership readiness to conduct CBPR. Key informant interviews and focus groups (n = 36 participants) were conducted with academic and community participants who had experiences with CBPR partnerships. A 'framework analysis' approach was used to analyze the data and generate a new model, CBPR Partnership Readiness Model. Antecedents of CBPR partnership readiness are a catalyst and mutual interest. The major dimensions of the CBPR Partnership Readiness Model are (i) goodness of fit, (ii) capacity, and (iii) operations. Preferred outcomes are sustainable partnership and product, mutual growth, policy and social and health impact on the community. CBPR partnership readiness is an iterative and dynamic process, partnership and issue specific, influenced by a range of environmental and contextual factors, amenable to change and essential for sustainability and promotion of health and social change in the community.

Training Partnership Dyads for Community-Based Participatory Research

“…Following program completion, we track teams’ progress with their partnership by documenting grant submissions, grant funding, and dissemination activities (both local and scholarly presentations, media, and publications). Although currently we assess CBPR Partnership Readiness (Andrews et al, 2011; Andrews, Newman, et al, 2012) with qualitative methods (focus groups and interviews), we are in the process of developing a quantitative scale for pretest and posttest measures. Adoption : In the case of the CES-P, “adoption” is reflected in measures of impact effectiveness at the dyad level. We use Green et al’s (2003) Guidelines for Participatory Research to review the CES-P teams’ pilot proposals.…”

“…CBPR partnerships often require negotiation and compromise, which depends on dialogue and development of trust-based relationships (Martinez et al, 2012). Many CBPR partnerships are catalyzed by a new grant or funding opportunity with immediate deadlines and fail to lay the foundation for the transparent dialogue and trust that are needed for the CBPR partnership and product sustainability (Andrews, Newman, Meadows, Cox, & Bunting, 2012). …”

Effect of a smoking cessation intervention for women in subsidized neighborhoods: A randomized controlled trial

“…In the pilot RCT, community leaders approached the academic researchers to assist with smoking cessation strategies. The community-initiated request, along with the committed grassroots community leaders and positive history of other health promoting interventions in the pilot neighborhoods signified a level of readiness and commitment to the partnership and products (Andrews et al, 2012c). The process of identifying champions, co-developing materials, testing feasibility, and implementing the pilot study involved a three year period, allowing time to develop relationships, trust, and co-ownership of the products and processes.…”

From space to place in urban planning: facilitating change through Participatory Action Research

“…Ward committees are official representative structures within communities, elected in terms of the Municipal Structures Act [29]. These committees are regarded as having the potential to build strong relationships with communities [30] as they are closest to the people on the ground. Gaining access to a community for research purposes is important as this establishes a sense of trust between participants and researchers so that communication can flow spontaneously [30].…”

“…These committees are regarded as having the potential to build strong relationships with communities [30] as they are closest to the people on the ground. Gaining access to a community for research purposes is important as this establishes a sense of trust between participants and researchers so that communication can flow spontaneously [30]. The overall process included numerous focus group discussions, a collaborative design workshop and various meetings with stakeholders.…”