Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mikesell L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3828990 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Ethical community-engaged research: a literature review.
Mikesell Lisa L Bromley Elizabeth E Khodyakov Dmitry D
American journal of public health 20131017 12
Health research has relied on ethical principles, such as those of the Belmont Report, to protect the rights and well-being of research participants. Community-based participatory research (CBPR), however, must also consider the rights and well-being of communities. This requires additional ethical considerations that have been extensively discussed but not synthesized in the CBPR literature. We conducted a comprehensive thematic literature review and summarized empirically grounded discussions ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The transfer of new discoveries into both clinical practice and the wider community calls for reliance on interdisciplinary translational teams that include researchers with different areas of expertise, representatives of health care systems and community organizations, and patients. Engaging new stakeholders in research, however, calls for a reconsideration or expansion of the meaning of ethics in translational research. We explored expert opinion on the applicability of ethical principles commonly practiced in community-engaged research (CEnR) to translational research. To do so, we conducted 2 online, modified-Delphi panels with 63 expert stakeholders who iteratively rated and discussed 9 ethical principles commonly used in CEnR in terms of their importance and feasibility for use in translational research. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used to analyze the data and determine agreement and disagreement among participating experts. Both panels agreed that ethical translational research should be "grounded in trust." Although the academic panel endorsed "culturally appropriate" and "forthcoming with community about study risks and benefits," the mixed academic-community panel endorsed "scientifically valid" and "ready to involve community in interpretation and dissemination" as important and feasible principles of ethical translational research. These findings suggest that in addition to protecting human subjects, contemporary translational science models need to account for the interests of, and owe ethical obligations to, members of the investigative team and the community at large.
| S-EPMC4833614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy Points Community-engaged research (CEnR) engenders meaningful academic-community partnerships to improve research quality and health outcomes. CEnR has increasingly been adopted by health care systems, funders, and communities looking for solutions to intractable problems. It has been difficult to systematically measure CEnR's impact, as most evaluations focus on project-specific outcomes. Similarly, partners have struggled with identifying appropriate measures to assess outcomes of interest. To make a case for CEnR's value, we must demonstrate the impacts of CEnR over time. We compiled recent measures and developed an interactive data visualization to facilitate more consistent measurement of CEnR's theoretical domains.ContextCommunity-engaged research (CEnR) aims to engender meaningful academic-community partnerships to increase research quality and impact, improve individual and community health, and build capacity for uptake of evidence-based practices. Given the urgency to solve society's pressing public health problems and increasing competition for funding, it is important to demonstrate CEnR's value. Most evaluations focus on project-specific outcomes, making it difficult to demonstrate CEnR's broader impact. Moreover, it is challenging for partnerships to identify assessments of interest beyond process measures. We conducted a mapping review to help partnerships find and select measures to evaluate CEnR projects and to characterize areas where further development of measures is needed.MethodsWe searched electronic bibliographic databases using relevant search terms from 2009 to 2018 and scanned CEnR projects to identify unpublished measures. Through review and reduction, we found 69 measures of CEnR's context, process, or outcomes that are potentially generalizable beyond a specific health condition or population. We abstracted data from descriptions of each measure to catalog purpose, aim (context, process, or outcome), and specific domains being measured.FindingsWe identified 28 measures of the conditions under which CEnR is conducted and factors to support effective academic-community collaboration (context); 43 measures evaluating constructs such as group dynamics and trust (process); and 43 measures of impacts such as benefits and challenges of CEnR participation and system and capacity changes (outcomes).ConclusionsWe found substantial variation in how academic-community partnerships conceptualize and define even similar domains. Achieving more consistency in how partnerships evaluate key constructs could reduce measurement confusion apparent in the literature. A hybrid approach whereby partnerships discuss common metrics and develop locally important measures can address CEnR's multiple goals. Our accessible data visualization serves as a convenient resource to support partnerships' evaluation goals and may help to build the evidence base for CEnR through the use of common measures across studies.
| S-EPMC7296434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Community-engaged research is understood as existing on a continuum from less to more community engagement, defined by participation and decision-making authority. It has been widely assumed that more is better than less engagement. However, we argue that what makes for good community engagement is not simply the extent but the fit or alignment between the intended approach and the various contexts shaping the research projects. This article draws on case studies from three Community Engagement Cores (CECs) of NIEHS-funded Environmental Health Science Core Centers (Harvard University, UC Davis and University of Arizona,) to illustrate the ways in which community engagement approaches have been fit to different contexts and the successes and challenges experienced in each case. We analyze the processes through which the CECs work with researchers and community leaders to develop place-based community engagement approaches and find that different strategies are called for to fit distinct contexts. We find that alignment of the scale and scope of the environmental health issue and related research project, the capacities and resources of the researchers and community leaders, and the influences of the sociopolitical environment are critical for understanding and designing effective and equitable engagement approaches. These cases demonstrate that the types and degrees of alignment in community-engaged research projects are dynamic and evolve over time. Based on this analysis, we recommend that CBPR scholars and practitioners select a range of project planning and management techniques for designing and implementing their collaborative research approaches and both expect and allow for the dynamic and changing nature of alignment.
| S-EPMC7068394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:National and international codes of research conduct have been established in most industrialized nations to ensure greater adherence to ethical research practices. Despite these safeguards, however, traditional research approaches often continue to stigmatize marginalized and vulnerable communities. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved as an effective new research paradigm that attempts to make research a more inclusive and democratic process by fostering the development of partnerships between communities and academics to address community-relevant research priorities. As such, it attempts to redress ethical concerns that have emerged out of more traditional paradigms. Nevertheless, new and emerging ethical dilemmas are commonly associated with CBPR and are rarely addressed in traditional ethical reviews. We conducted a content analysis of forms and guidelines commonly used by institutional review boards (IRBs) in the USA and research ethics boards (REBs) in Canada. Our intent was to see if the forms used by boards reflected common CBPR experience. We drew our sample from affiliated members of the US-based Association of Schools of Public Health and from Canadian universities that offered graduate public health training. This convenience sample (n = 30) was garnered from programs where application forms were available online for download between July and August, 2004. Results show that ethical review forms and guidelines overwhelmingly operate within a biomedical framework that rarely takes into account common CBPR experience. They are primarily focused on the principle of assessing risk to individuals and not to communities and continue to perpetuate the notion that the domain of "knowledge production" is the sole right of academic researchers. Consequently, IRBs and REBs may be unintentionally placing communities at risk by continuing to use procedures inappropriate or unsuitable for CBPR. IRB/REB procedures require a new framework more suitable for CBPR, and we propose alternative questions and procedures that may be utilized when assessing the ethical appropriateness of CBPR.
| S-EPMC2219570 | biostudies-other
Project description:Human research ethics training should provide relevant, meaningful information and build skills. Compliance should not be the only goal; training should also enhance knowledge, skills, and capacity. However, most currently available human research ethics training programs are geared toward learners who already have some research experience and working knowledge of research methods (e.g., graduate students, junior researchers); many community partners, however, have little or no prior exposure to research. More important, standard training programs do not adequately address the unique context of community-engaged research (CEnR).This article describes the development process, final curricular materials, and suggestions for successful implementation of CIRTification, a human research ethics training program designed specifically for community research partners who will be working on the "frontlines" of research.Development of CIRTification involved an extensive literature review, consultation with stakeholders including community partners, academic researchers, and human research protection program personnel.The curriculum, as well as information and materials to help potential users promote acceptance of the curriculum by their local institutional review boards (IRBs), are freely available online at www.go.uic.edu/CIRT. Ideally, community research partners who complete CIRTification will not only learn about the importance of protecting research participants but also be empowered to substantially contribute to the ethical practices of their respective research collaborations.
| S-EPMC4711932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this manuscript is to describe a method of integrating baccalaureate nursing student service-learning experiences within a randomized controlled trial conducted in a community setting to facilitate student learning and expose students to the nursing scientist role. Placing students in a research service-learning experience involved several steps beginning with finding a nursing program for potential collaboration where this service-learning opportunity would be a natural fit with course content and formalizing the collaboration between the two institutions. Upon receipt of research grant funding, researchers and course faculty worked to navigate logistics and place students within the service-learning experience. After research training, 35 students assisted with intervention delivery and completed course assignments to document their learning. The collaboration described between a community-engaged research team from a research-intensive university and course faculty from a distant institution could be replicated with all types of nursing research.
| S-EPMC7736640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States and African Americans (AA) have a disproportionately greater burden of CVD as compared to Whites. The American Heart Association (AHA) Life's Simple 7 (LS7) framework outlines goals for attaining ideal cardiovascular health. Yet, there is a lack of evidence summarizing best practices to maximize LS7 attainment. The objective of the present study was to systematically review the extant peer-reviewed literature on community-engaged and community-based participatory research (CBPR) aimed at improving one or more LS7 metrics among AA. METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases were searched. We included articles that reported quantitative results for one or more of the following LS7 metrics: physical activity, diet, cholesterol, blood pressure, body mass index, smoking, and glycemia. We included analyses with a greater than 50% AA study population focused on adults (?18 years of age). RESULTS:Of the 1008 unique studies identified, 54 met inclusion criteria; 27 of which were randomized controlled trials. 50% of studies assessed more than one LS7 metric but only two studies evaluated all seven of the LS7 metrics. No studies had a high proportion of AA males. 40 studies improved at least one LS7 metric at the study end-point. Formative research was used in many studies to guide intervention design. Studies were of varying quality, but overall rated "fair" using a modified approach to the National Institute of Health quality assessment tool. CONCLUSION:There is insufficient data to recommend a specific community-engaged or CBPR intervention to improve attainment of LS7 metrics among AA. Future studies using rigorous methodology with increased gender diversity and utilizing the AHA LS7 framework are required to establish a validated program to improve LS7 in AAs.
| S-EPMC7462313 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The institutions that comprise the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences continue to explore and develop community-engaged research strategies and to study the role of community academic partnerships in advancing the science of community engagement. OBJECTIVES:To explore CTSA institutions in relation to an Institute of Medicine recommendation that community engagement occur in all stages of translational research and be defined and evaluated consistently. METHODS:A sequential multimethods study starting with an online pilot survey followed by survey respondents and site informant interviews. A revised survey was sent to the community engagement and evaluation leads at each CTSA institution, requesting a single institutional response about the definitions, indicators, and metrics of community engagement and community-engaged research. RESULTS:A plurality of CTSA institutions selected the definition of community engagement from the Principles of Community Engagement. Although claiming unique institutional priorities create barriers to developing shared metrics, responses indicate an overall lack of attention to the development and deployment of metrics to assess community engagement in and contributions to research. CONCLUSIONS:Although definitions of community engagement differ among CTSAs, there seem to be more similarities than differences in the indicators and measures tracked and reported on across all definitions, perhaps owing to commonalities among program infrastructures and goals. Metrics will likely need to be specific to translational research stages. The assessment of community engagement within translational science will require increased institutional commitment.
| S-EPMC6237095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Globally, there is renewed interest in and momentum for strengthening community health systems, as also emphasized by the recent Astana Declaration. Recent reviews have identified factors critical to successful community health worker (CHW) programs but pointed to significant evidence gaps. This review aims to propose a global research agenda to strengthen CHW programs. METHODS AND RESULTS:We conducted a search for extant systematic reviews on any intermediate factors affecting the effectiveness of CHW programs in February 2018. A total of 30 articles published after year 2000 were included. Data on research gaps were abstracted and summarized under headings based on predominant themes identified in the literature. Following this data gathering phase, two technical advisory groups comprised of experts in the field of community health-including policymakers, implementors, researchers, advocates and donors-were convened to discuss, validate, and prioritize the research gaps identified. Research gap areas that were identified in the literature and validated through expert consultation include selection and training of CHWs, community embeddedness, institutionalization of CHW programs (referrals, supervision, and supply chain), CHW needs including incentives and remuneration, governance and sustainability of CHW programs, performance and quality of care, and cost-effectiveness of CHW programs. Priority research questions included queries on effective policy, financing, governance, supervision and monitoring systems for CHWs and community health systems, implementation questions around the role of digital technologies, CHW preferences, and drivers of CHW motivation and retention over time. CONCLUSIONS:As international interest and investment in CHW programs and community health systems continue to grow, it becomes critical not only to analyze the evidence that exists, but also to clearly define research questions and collect additional evidence to ensure that CHW programs are effective, efficient, equity promoting, and evidence based. Generally, the literature places a strong emphasis on the need for higher quality, more robust research.
| S-EPMC6429801 | biostudies-other
Project description:Creation of an inclusive environment requires a culture of equity, justice, value and respect for diverse backgrounds, and opportunities for students to engage with communities while addressing issues in science and society. These tasks are particularly challenging for institutions lacking a diverse population. Here, we demonstrate evidence of a successful model for creating an inclusive environment in an interinstitutional course between a large, public, historically black institution and a small, private, primarily white institution. Because many individuals from underrepresented minority groups tend to value communal goals of working together and helping their communities, we incorporated two high-impact practices of community-engaged learning and course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) focused on health disparities research in neighboring communities. Although the research projects varied each semester, they were linked by their impact on and engagement with the community. Students practiced cultural competency skills in both small group projects within the class and engagement activities in the community. We measured the efficacy of CURE components (novel authentic research, scientific process skills, iteration, collaboration, and broader impact) through a combination of direct and indirect assessments, quantitative and qualitative analysis. More than simply scientific skills, students from both institutions developed lasting interest in working with diverse populations as well as respecting and valuing different backgrounds. This inclusive environment, combined with increased interest in research, suggests that this course could potentially serve as a model for interinstitutional collaborations in creating inclusive environments that support the future success of diverse students, eventually changing the STEM research culture.
| S-EPMC7195161 | biostudies-literature