Dataset Information

Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community-Academic Research Partnerships.

ABSTRACT: Community-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who identified and rated the importance of different antecedents of trust on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Study participants were community members ( n = 66), health care providers ( n = 38), and academic researchers ( n = 44). All stakeholder groups rated "authentic communication" and "reciprocal relationships" the highest in importance. Community members rated "communication/methodology to resolve problems" ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) significantly higher than academic researchers ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.67) and health care providers ( M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; p < .01) and had different perspectives regarding the importance of issues related to "sustainability." The importance of communication and relationships across stakeholders indicates the importance of colearning processes that involve the exchange of knowledge and skills. The differences uncovered suggest specific areas where attention and skill building may be needed to improve trust within partnerships. More research on how partnerships can improve communication specific to problem solving and sustainability is merited.

SUBMITTER: Frerichs L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6051524 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community-Academic Research Partnerships.

Frerichs Leah L Kim Mimi M Dave Gaurav G Cheney Ann A Hassmiller Lich Kristen K Jones Jennifer J Young Tiffany L TL Cene Crystal W CW Varma Deepthi S DS Schaal Jennifer J Black Adina A Striley Catherine W CW Vassar Stefanie S Sullivan Greer G Cottler Linda B LB Brown Arleen A Burke Jessica G JG Corbie-Smith Giselle G

Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education 20160709 1

Community-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who ...[more]

PMID: 27230272

Similar Datasets

Project description:The engagement of community partners in equitable partnerships with academic teams is necessary to achieve health equity. However, there is no standardized approach to support bidirectional engagement among research stakeholders in the context of partnership equity at each phase of the research process. We describe the development of a systematic framework along with competencies and tools promoting bidirectional engagement and equity within community-academic partnerships at each phase of the research process. We conducted a four-step research process between November 2020 and December 2023 for framework development: (1) a narrative literature review; (2) expansion of existing bidirectional, equitable framework; (3) a scientific review with two groups of cognitive interviews (five community engagement researchers and five community leaders and members); and (4) three community-based organization leader focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus group data. Using results of each step, the framework was iteratively developed, yielding four phases of the bidirectional engagement and equity (BEE) research framework: Relationship building and assessment of goals and resources (Phase I); form a community-academic partnership based on shared research interests (may include multilevel stakeholders) (Phase II); develop a research team comprising members from each partnering organization (Phase III); and implement the six-step equitable research process (Phase IV). Bidirectional learning and partnership principles are at the core of the partnership, particularly in Phases II-IV. Competencies and tools for conducting an equitable, engaged research process were provided. This conceptual framework offers a novel, stepwise approach and competencies for community-academic partners to successfully partner and conduct the research process equitably. The BEE research framework can be implemented to standardize the conduct of an equitable, engaged research process within a community-academic partnership, while improving knowledge and trust across partners and, ultimately, an increased return on investment and sustainability to benefit both partners in the area of health outcomes and ultimately health equity. The development of this framework was co-led with a community organization in which two leaders in the organization were equitably involved in each phase of the research process, including grant development, study design, participant recruitment, protocol development for focus groups and community and researcher review, framework design and content and dissemination of this manuscript as a co-author. For grant development, the community leader completed the give-get grid components for them as a partner. They also wrote up their lived experience in the research process for the progress report. For the focus groups, one community leader co-led the focus group with the academic partner. For the narrative review, the community leaders did not actively conduct the narrative review but observed the process through the academic partners. One community leader wrote the section 'relationship building' and 'bidirectional learning' sections with the assistance of the academic partner, while they both equally provided input on other sections of the manuscript alongside academic partners. The community leaders have extensive experience in leading programmes, along with partnering with researchers to address health equity issues and improve health outcomes.

Project description:Community involvement in HIV research has increased over recent years, enhancing community-academic partnerships. Several terms have been used to describe community participation in research. Clarification is needed to determine whether these terms are synonymous or actually describe different research processes. In addition, it remains unclear if the role that communities play in the actual research process follows the recommendations given in theoretical frameworks of community-academia research.The objective of this study is to review the existing terms and definitions regarding community-academic partnerships and assess how studies are implementing these in relation to conceptual definitions.A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed. Two reviewers independently assessed each article, applying the following inclusion criteria: the article must be published in English before 2013; it must provide an explicit definition and/or defining methodology for a term describing research with a community component; and it has to refer to HIV or AIDS, reproductive health and/or STDs. When disagreements about the relevance of an article emerged, a third reviewer was involved until concordance was reached. Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second. Qualitative data were analyzed using MaxQDA for content and thematic analyses while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Community feedback on data analysis and presentation of results was also incorporated.In total, 246 articles were retrieved, 159 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The number of studies that included community participation in the field of HIV research increased between 1991 and 2012, and the terms used to describe these activities have changed, moving away from action research (AR) to participatory action research (PAR), community-based research (CBR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR), with the latter being the most commonly used term. While definitions of all terms had common characteristics (e.g. participation of community in research process), they varied with regard to the emphasis placed on these characteristics. The nature of community participation in reviewed studies differed considerably from that described in theoretical models.This study indicates the increase of participatory approaches in HIV research and underlines the need for clarification of terms and a framework providing orientation to community-academia partnerships.

Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.MethodsSince 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community-academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods.ResultsFrom 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community-academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding.ConclusionsKeys to success included participation as community-academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community-academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community-academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.

Project description:BackgroundIn 2019-2020, with National Cancer Institute funding, seven implementation laboratory (I-Lab) partnerships between scientists and stakeholders in 'real-world' settings working to implement evidence-based interventions were developed within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) consortium. This paper describes and compares approaches to the initial development of seven I-Labs in order to gain an understanding of the development of research partnerships representing various implementation science designs.MethodsIn April-June 2021, members of the ISC3 Implementation Laboratories workgroup interviewed research teams involved in I-Lab development in each center. This cross-sectional study used semi-structured interviews and case-study-based methods to collect and analyze data about I-Lab designs and activities. Interview notes were analyzed to identify a set of comparable domains across sites. These domains served as the framework for seven case descriptions summarizing design decisions and partnership elements across sites.ResultsDomains identified from interviews as comparable across sites included engagement of community and clinical I-Lab members in research activities, data sources, engagement methods, dissemination strategies, and health equity. The I-Labs use a variety of research partnership designs to support engagement including participatory research, community-engaged research, and learning health systems of embedded research. Regarding data, I-Labs in which members use common electronic health records (EHRs) leverage these both as a data source and a digital implementation strategy. I-Labs without a shared EHR among partners also leverage other sources for research or surveillance, most commonly qualitative data, surveys, and public health data systems. All seven I-Labs use advisory boards or partnership meetings to engage with members; six use stakeholder interviews and regular communications. Most (70%) tools or methods used to engage I-Lab members such as advisory groups, coalitions, or regular communications, were pre-existing. Think tanks, which two I-Labs developed, represented novel engagement approaches. To disseminate research results, all centers developed web-based products, and most (n = 6) use publications, learning collaboratives, and community forums. Important variations emerged in approaches to health equity, ranging from partnering with members serving historically marginalized populations to the development of novel methods.ConclusionsThe development of the ISC3 implementation laboratories, which represented a variety of research partnership designs, offers the opportunity to advance understanding of how researchers developed and built partnerships to effectively engage stakeholders throughout the cancer control research lifecycle. In future years, we will be able to share lessons learned for the development and sustainment of implementation laboratories.

Dataset Information

Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community-Academic Research Partnerships.

Publications

Stakeholder Perspectives on Creating and Maintaining Trust in Community-Academic Research Partnerships.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets