[from "Sarena Seifer" <[log in to unmask]> on SDOH-list]

*please excuse cross-postings

The U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has released the report,
Community-based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence in PDF form
on its website at
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/evrptpdfs.htm#cbpr
The citation and abstract appear below.

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH) will be hosting a
teleconference on the report's findings this fall, featuring the report's
authors as presenters.  Stay tuned for details!    If you forward this email
to colleagues not on the CBPR listserv, they can get the details by joining
the listserv or by signing up for CCPH's monthly e-news at
http://www.ccph.info

Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Gartlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, Rhodes
S, Samuel-Hodge C, Maty S, Lux, L, Webb L, Sutton SF, Swinson T, Jackman A,
Whitener L. Community-Based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence.
Evidence Report/ Technology Assessment No. 99 (Prepared by RTIUniversity of
North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No.
290-02-0016). AHRQ Publication 04-E022-2. Rockville, MD: Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality. July 2004.

Structured Abstract

Context: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative
approach to research that combines methods of inquiry with community
capacity-building strategies to bridge the gap between knowledge produced
through research and what is practiced in communities to improve health.
Interest is growing rapidly for academic institutions, health agencies, and
communities to form research partnerships; few agreed-upon guidelines
describe how to develop or evaluate CBPR proposals or what resources are
required to promote successful collaborative research efforts.

Objectives: This systematic review consolidates literature on health-related
CBPR. We addressed the following key questions:
Key Question 1: What defines CBPR?
Key Question 2: How has CBPR been implemented to date with regard to the
quality of research methodology and community involvement?
Key Question 3: What is the evidence that CBPR efforts have resulted in the
intended outcomes?
Key Question 4: What criteria and processes should be used for review of
CBPR in grant proposals?

Data Sources: For KQs 1-4, we searched standard electronic databases
(MEDLINE, Cochrane Collaboration resources, Psycinfo, and Sociofile) for all
years using specified Medical Subject Headings terms. We identified a
forthcoming special journal issue and hand-searched reference lists of
relevant articles. For KQ 4, we also reviewed websites for funding agencies
and talked with federal agency staff.

Study Selection: For KQ 1, we used peer-reviewed articles that synthesized
the evolution of, values for, or lessons learned from collaborative
research. For KQ 2 and 3, we included peer reviewed CBPR studies published
in the English language, conducted in the United States and Canada, and with
at least one community collaborator.

Data Extraction: To review articles for KQ 1 through 3, we created separate
abstraction forms. We entered abstracted data for KQ 1 into a domain matrix
and for KQ 2 and 3 into evidence tables. We created quality rating forms to
assess each studys research methods and adherence to CBPR principles of
community collaboration.

Data Synthesis: We reviewed a total of 185 articles: 55 for KQ1; 123 for KQs
2 and 3; and 7 for KQ 4. The 123 articles for KQs 2 and 3 pertain to 60 CBPR
studies. Of the 30 intervention studies, 12 had been completed and
evaluated. Quality ratings for these suggested stronger research scores for
the experimental studies than for the others, although nonexperimental
studies also showed modest effects on health outcomes. Quality ratings for
community participation were strongest for recruitment/retention and
intervention design followed by development and pilot testing of measures.
Steering committees or advisory boards were the main mechanisms for sharing
research decisionmaking, but these formal structures generally did not
develop research questions or proposals.

The number of high-quality CBPR publications has increased recently, which
may reflect more targeted funding and special journal issues on this theme.
Guidelines are still needed to assist funding agencies and grant applicants
and reviewers in achieving the best balance of rigorous research and optimal
collaboration among communities and institutions.
Conclusions: Many CBPR studies had strong community-institution
collaborations; relatively few combined this type of collaboration with
solid research methods. Our synthesis of this literature enabled us to
produce guidelines to improve the quality of and funding for CBPR.

************************************************************************
Community-Campus Partnerships for Health is a nonprofit organization that
promotes health through partnerships between communities and higher
educational institutions.  Check out our website at www.ccph.info

Join us for our first-ever international conference being cosponsored by
CCPH and The Network: Toward Unity for Health, October 6-10, 2004 in
Atlanta, GA USA on Overcoming Health Disparities through Partnerships

CCPH is the Higher Education Senior Program Advisor for the Learn and Serve
America National Service-Learning Clearinghouse.  Visit the Clearinghouse at
www.servicelearning.org
************************************************************************

Alison Stirling,
co-facilitator, CLICK4HP listserv
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]

[NOTE: my email address has changed for the next year as I pursue further
academic studies]

To unsubscribe send one line: unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] . To view archives or modify subscription see: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html