Dataset Information

Increasing research literacy in minority communities: CARES fellows training program.

ABSTRACT: The community alliance for Research Empowering Social Change (CARES) is an academic-community research partnership designed to: (1) train community members about evidence based public health, (2) increase community members' scientific literacy, and (3) develop the infrastructure for community-based participatory research so that local stakeholders can examine and address racial/ethnic health disparities in their communities. Nineteen community members enrolled in the CARES training. The training consisted of 11 didactic training sessions and 4 experiential workshops, taught by a multidisciplinary faculty from research institutions. Results suggest that the training increased research literacy, prepared community members for collaborative work with academic researchers, and empowered them to utilize scientific research methods to create social change in their communities.

SUBMITTER: Goodman MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3177406 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Increasing research literacy in minority communities: CARES fellows training program.

Goodman Melody S MS Dias Janice Johnson JJ Stafford Jewel D JD

Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE 20101201 4

The community alliance for Research Empowering Social Change (CARES) is an academic-community research partnership designed to: (1) train community members about evidence based public health, (2) increase community members' scientific literacy, and (3) develop the infrastructure for community-based participatory research so that local stakeholders can examine and address racial/ethnic health disparities in their communities. Nineteen community members enrolled in the CARES training. The training ...[more]

PMID: 21133785

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:The Mississippi Community Research Fellows Training Program (MSCRFTP) is a 15-week program conducted in Jackson, MS, USA consisting of training in the areas of evidence-based public health, research methods, research ethics, and cultural competency. The purpose of the program was to increase community knowledge and understanding of public health research, develop community-based projects that addressed health disparity in the participants' community, increase individual and community capacity, and to engage community members as equal partners in the research process. Methods:A comprehensive evaluation of the MSCRFTP was conducted that included both quantitative and qualitative methods. All participants were asked to complete a baseline, midterm, and final assessment as part of their program requirements. Knowledge gained was assessed by comparing baseline assessment responses to final assessment responses related to 27 key content areas addressed in the training sessions. Assessments also collected participants' attitudes toward participating in research within their communities, their perceived influence over community decisions, and their perceptions of community members' involvement in research, satisfaction with the program, and the program's impact on the participants' daily practice and community work. Results:Twenty-one participants, the majority of which were female and African-American, completed the MSCRFTP. Knowledge of concepts addressed in 15 weekly training sessions improved significantly on 85.2% of 27 key areas evaluated (p?<?0.05). Two mini-grant community based participatory research projects proposed by participants were funded through competitive application. Most participants agreed that by working together, the people in their community could influence decisions that affected the community. All participants rated their satisfaction with the overall program as "very high" (76.2%, n?=?16) or "high" (23.8%, n?=?5). Conclusion:The evaluation of the MSCRFTP demonstrates that participants have the necessary knowledge to engage as research partners, and the pilot projects provided an opportunity for application of this objective to be realized. Overall, the MSCRFTP was an intervention that assisted community members in identifying their communities' strengths and weaknesses, interpret knowledge in a meaningful way, and create a self-reflective community of inquiry for change.

Project description:Policy Points Engaging and involving underrepresented communities when setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. Groups and individuals from minority and underserved communities strongly prioritized child health and mental health research, often choosing to invest at the highest possible level. Groups consisting of predominantly Native American or Arab American participants invested in culture and beliefs research at the highest level, while many groups did not select it at all. The priority given to culture and beliefs research by these groups illustrates the importance of paying special attention to unique preferences, and not just commonly held views, when getting public input on spending priorities for research.ContextA major contributor to health disparities is the relative lack of resources-including resources for science-allocated to address the health problems of those with disproportionately greater needs. Engaging and involving underrepresented communities in setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. We engaged minority and underserved communities in informed deliberations and report here their priorities for health research.MethodsAcademic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT for setting health research priorities. We had participants from minority and medically underserved communities (47 groups, n = 519) throughout Michigan deliberate about health research priorities, and we used surveys and CHAT software to collect the demographic characteristics and priorities selected by individuals and groups.FindingsThe participants ranged in age (18 to 88), included more women than men, and were overrepresented by minority groups. Nearly all the deliberating groups selected child health and mental health research (93.6% and 95.7%), and most invested at the highest level. Aging, access, promote health, healthy environment, and what causes disease were also prioritized by groups. Research on mental health and child health were high priorities for individuals both before and after group deliberations. Access was the only category more likely to be selected by individuals after group deliberation (77.0 vs 84.0%, OR = 1.63, p = .005), while improve research, health policy, and culture and beliefs were less likely to be selected after group deliberations (all, p < .001). However, the level of investment in many categories changed after the group deliberations. Participants identifying as Black/African American were less likely to prioritize mental health research, and those of Other race were more likely to prioritize culture and beliefs research.ConclusionsMinority and medically underserved communities overwhelmingly prioritized mental health and child health research in informed deliberations about spending priorities.

Dataset Information

Increasing research literacy in minority communities: CARES fellows training program.

Publications

Increasing research literacy in minority communities: CARES fellows training program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets