A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coombe CM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7772255 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:In recent decades, there has been remarkable growth in scholarship examining the usefulness of community-engaged research (CEnR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) for eliminating health inequities.This article seeks to synthesize the extant literature of systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and other related reviews regarding the context, processes, and research designs and interventions underlying CEnR that optimize its effectiveness. Through a scoping review, we have utilized an empirically derived framework of CBPR to map this literature and identify key findings and priorities for future research. Our study found 100 reviews of CEnR that largely support the CBPR conceptual framework.
| S-EPMC8095013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThis formative study leveraged a community-academic partnership to identify barriers to care that are potential sources of breast cancer disparities in Black women. Through this partnership and using a community-based participatory research approach, the objective was to develop a community task force to inform future interventions aimed at addressing breast cancer disparities and increasing health equity.MethodsThe authors assessed gaps in care related to breast cancer in Buffalo, New York, by collecting and analyzing qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with breast cancer survivors and breast navigation groups assessing barriers and facilitators across the cancer care continuum. Then, community-based participatory research approaches were used to build a task force to develop an action plan addressing gaps in care.ResultsThe authors conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative findings to understand barriers and facilitators to cancer care. Three main domains of themes emerged, including medical mistrust, fear, and stigma; the importance of patient navigation as a form of social support; and the importance of faith and faith-based community. Finally, the findings were presented to a newly formed community task force to validate the data collected and set future priorities to address breast cancer disparities and increase breast health equity in the region.ConclusionsThe authors observed that health equity is a critically important issue in cancer care and that developing culturally tailored interventions has the potential to improve care delivery and reduce breast cancer disparities. Learning from and working with community members helps set the future agenda related to health equity.Plain language summaryOur overall goal was to assess gaps in breast cancer care in Buffalo, New York, and to use community-based participatory approaches to build a task force to work toward breast health equity. Recent and historical data indicate that the Western New York community is facing a continued wide gap in breast cancer mortality trends between Black and White patients. We collected qualitative data to understand potential sources of inequity related to breast cancer and presented findings to a community task force to set future priorities for addressing breast cancer disparities and increasing breast health equity in our region.
| S-EPMC10513749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Participatory systems thinking methods are often used in community-based participatory research to engage and respond to complexity. Participation in systems thinking activities creates opportunities for participants to gain useful insights about complexity. It is desirable to design activities that extend the benefits of this participation into communities, as these insights are predictive of success in community-based prevention. This study tests an online, computer-mediated participatory system modelling platform (STICKE) and associated methods for collating and analysing its outputs. STICKE was trialled among a group of community members to test a computer-mediated system modelling exercise. The causal diagrams resulting from the exercise were then merged, and network analysis and DEMATEL methods applied to inform the generation of a smaller summary model to communicate insights from the participant group as a whole. Participants successfully completed the online modelling activity, and created causal diagrams consistent with expectations. The DEMATEL analysis was identified as the participant-preferred method for converging individuals causal diagrams into a coherent and useful summary. STICKE is an accessible tool that enabled participants to create causal diagrams online. Methods trialled in this study provide a protocol for combining and summarising individual causal diagrams that was perceived to be useful by the participant group. STICKE supports communities to consider and respond to complex problems at a local level, which is cornerstone of sustainable effective prevention. Understanding how communities perceive their own health challenges will be important to better support and inform locally owned prevention efforts.
| S-EPMC7031223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIn most countries, public health partnerships exist to advance national tobacco control. We assessed characteristics related to tobacco control partnership capacity across Europe.MethodsWe developed a tool to assess partnership characteristics related to their theoretical capacity to influence policy. The tool was based on an existing framework in the literature, which we adapted for the tobacco control field, through an expert panel, insights from the literature and pilot tests. The tool consists of three dimensions: resources (8 items), member characteristics (2 items), and organizational characteristics (8 items) and was administered to 18 European partnerships across 17 European countries in 2019.ResultsWhereas several characteristics likely related to tobacco control partnership capacity were highly prevalent across European partnerships, some were not. Of all 18 partnerships, 5 did not include professional lobbyists, 7 did not have access to national information on tobacco industry presence and lobbying, 9 had no influence on national research agendas, and 7 did not maintain working relationships with the relevant Minister or Secretary of State. Furthermore, 5 of 18 partnerships had no agreement on roles and responsibilities of member organizations, and 6 had no agreement on how credits are divided across member organizations. A leadership figure was absent in 6 of 18 partnerships.ConclusionsThis study confirms that tobacco control partnerships vary greatly in the extent to which they possess characteristics associated with their ability to advance tobacco control. There is much room for improvement of European tobacco control partnerships.
| S-EPMC8135572 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPrevious studies have identified "trust" as a key mechanism to achieve sustainable partnerships in participatory health research, which themselves can represent social networks. A recent review discussed the potential for social network analysis to investigate the development and maintenance of trust and its effects on partnership functioning in participatory health research partnerships. This review also recommended considering a comprehensive, nuanced and multidimensional approach to conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring trust in research partnerships. Thus, this study aims to explore empirically the conceptualizing, operationalizing and measuring of trust in a multidimensional manner, approaching each trust dimension as an individual trust network, as well as combined as an overall trust network.MethodsWe sampled the whole network, recruiting from a newly established network of 57 individuals that must collaborate to achieve a common goal. These individuals represented academic, service and community organizations of an existing participatory partnership, the Public and Patient Involvement Ignite Network in Ireland. Of the 57 individuals invited to take part in the study, 75% (n = 43) individuals completed the network survey. A survey about trust was designed based on literature in the area and was administered via Qualtrics. The survey included eight network questions: one on collaboration, and seven on specific dimensions of trust. From this, we constructed a network for each trust dimension. We compared several core network measures of each to identify structural differences between the dimensions of trust. To statistically validate them, we compared them to a random and preferential null model.ResultsAll the networks had a high reciprocity but were decentralized. Key differences were identified across trust dimensions, particularly in terms of integrity and shared values, visions and goals. None of the networks compared well to the null models indicating participants did not randomly or preferentially (based on how much trust they receive for a particular trust dimension) trust other partners.Discussion/conclusionThis novel empirical social network analysis of trust in a real-world partnership elucidates the nuances and multidimensional nature of trust. This provides support for expanding this research direction to enhance understanding of and interventions for trust in participatory health research.
| S-EPMC9298888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGlobal health partnerships (GHPs) are situated in complex political and economic relationships and involve partners with different needs and interests (e.g., government agencies, non-governmental organizations, corporations, universities, professional associations, philanthropic organizations and communities). As part of a mixed methods study designed to develop an equity-sensitive tool to support more equity-centred North-South GHPs, this critical interpretive synthesis examined reported assessments of GHPs.ResultsWe examined 30 peer-reviewed articles for power dynamics, equity and inequities, and contradictions or challenges encountered in North-South partnerships. Among articles reviewed, authors most often situated GHPs around a topical focus on research, capacity-building, clinical, or health services issues, with the 'work' of the partnership aiming to foster skills or respond to community needs. The specific features of GHPs that were assessed varied widely, with consistently-reported elements including the early phases of partnering; governance issues; the day-to-day work of partnerships; the performance, impacts and benefits of GHPs; and issues of inclusion. Articles shared a general interest in partnering processes and often touched briefly on issues of equity; but they rarely accounted for the complexity of sociopolitical and historical contexts shaping issues of equity in GHPs. Further, assessments of GHPs were often reported without inclusion of voices from all partners or named beneficiaries. GHPs were frequently portrayed as inherently beneficial for Southern partners, without attention to power dynamics and inequities (North-South, South-South). Though historical and political dynamics of the Global North and South were inconsistently examined as influential forces in GHPs, such dynamics were frequently portrayed as complex and characterized by asymmetries in power and resources. Generally, assessments of GHPs paid little attention to the macroeconomic forces in the power and resource dynamics of GHPs highlights the importance of considering the broader political. Our findings suggest that GHPs can serve to entrench both inequitable relationships and unfair distributions of power, resources, and wealth within and between countries (and partners) if inequitable power relationships are left unmitigated.ConclusionsWe argue that specific practices could enhance GHPs' contributions to equity, both in their processes and outcomes. Enhancing partnering practices to focus on inclusion, responsiveness to North-South and South-South inequities, and recognition of GHPs as situated in a broader (and inequitable) political economy. A relational and equity-centred approach to assessing GHPs would place social justice, humility and mutual benefits as central practices-that is, regular, routine things that partners involved in partnering do intentionally to make GHPs function well. Practicing equity in GHPs requires continuous efforts to explicitly acknowledge and examine the equity implications of all aspects of partnering.
| S-EPMC8254362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The emergence of global health partnerships (GHPs) towards the end of the twentieth century reflected concerns about slow progress in access to essential medicines, including vaccines. These partnerships bring together governments, private philanthropic foundations, NGOs, and international agencies. Those in the vaccine field seek to incentivise the development and manufacture of new vaccines, raise funds to pay for them and develop and support systems to deliver them to those in need. These activities became more critical during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the COVAX Facility Initiative promoting global vaccine equity. This review identifies lessons from previous experiences with GHPs. Findings contribute to understanding the emergence of GHPs, the mechanisms they leverage to support global access to vaccines, and the inherent challenges associated with their implementation. Using Arksey and O'Malley's method, we conducted a scoping review to identify and synthesise relevant articles. We analysed data thematically to identify barriers and opportunities for success. We included 68 eligible articles of 3,215 screened. Most (65 [95%]) were discussion or review articles describing partnerships or programmes they supported, and three (5%) were commentaries. Emerging themes included policy responses (e.g., immunisation mandates), different forms of partnerships arising in vaccine innovation (e.g., product development partnerships, public-private partnerships for access), and influence on global governance decision-making processes (e.g., the rising influence of foundations, diminishing authority of WHO, lack of accountability and transparency, creation of disease silos). If global health partnerships are to maximise their contributions, they should: (1) increase transparency, especially regarding their impacts; (2) address the need for health systems strengthening; and (3) address disincentives for cooperative vaccine research and development partnerships and encourage expansion of manufacturing capacity in low and middle-income countries.
| S-EPMC10883552 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Using document review, we identified 963 publicly accessible NIH RePORT publications across the 16 funded U54 Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (PACHE) center programs. Using the 868 publications that met criteria, we determined the frequency of publications across the funded PACHE programs by longevity; reported the frequency of studies focused on cancer health disparities; determined the proportion of institutions serving underserved health disparity populations, underrepresented students (ISUPS), and co- and lead-authored works; and categorized the scope of studies by commonalities in their reported purposes. The study findings showed that (1) center longevity was not necessarily related to the number of publications; (2) less than 20% of studies focused on cancer health disparities (CHD); (3) ISUPU co-authors appeared in 72% of publications, while lead authors were 48%; (4) 6.07% publications focused on cancer diagnosis, screening, treatment, and risk factors; 57.5% studies were mechanistic; 21.53% focused on the impact of interventions on health promotion, prevention, and quality of life; 5.62% studies were related to educational outcomes; and 9.28% studies were classified as epidemiological/survey outcomes. One of the primary purposes of PACHE centers is CHD research. Thus, we advocate increasing the frequency of CHD-focused publications. We suggest increasing the number of ISUPU lead-authored papers. To align with the PACHE mission, we also recommend increasing the number of studies focused on cancer diagnosis, screening, treatment, and risk factors and the impact of interventions on health promotion, prevention, and quality of life. To demonstrate the effectiveness and impact of training, increasing the number of educational outcome studies is also proposed.
| S-EPMC7910317 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9879886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In primary health care, multi-stakeholder partnerships between clinicians, policy makers, academic representatives and other stakeholders to improve service delivery are becoming more common. Literature on processes and approaches that enhance partnership effectiveness is growing. However, evidence on the performance of the measures of partnership functioning and the achievement of desired outcomes is still limited, due to the field's definitional ambiguity and the challenges inherent in measuring complex and evolving collaborative processes. Reliable measures are needed for external or self-assessment of partnership functioning, as intermediate steps in the achievement of desired outcomes. We adapted the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool (PSAT) and distributed it to multiple stakeholders within five partnerships in Canada and Australia. The instrument contained a number of partnership functioning sub-scales. New sub-scales were developed for the domains of communication and external environment. Partnership synergy was assessed using modified Partnership Synergy Processes and Partnership Synergy Outcomes sub-scales, and a combined Partnership Synergy scale. Ranking by partnership scores was compared with independent ranks based on a qualitative evaluation of the partnerships' development. 55 (90%) questionnaires were returned. Our results indicate that the instrument was capable of discriminating between different levels of dimensions of partnership functioning and partnership synergy even in a limited sample. The sub-scales were sufficiently reliable to have the capacity to discriminate between individuals, and between partnerships. There was negligible difference in the correlations between different partnership functioning dimensions and Partnership Synergy sub-scales. The Communication and External Environment sub-scales did not perform well metrically. The adapted partnership assessment tool is suitable for assessing the achievement of partnership synergy and specific indicators of partnership functioning. Further development of Communication and External Environment sub-scales is warranted. The instrument could be applied to assess internal partnership performance on key indicators across settings, in order to determine if the collaborative process is working well.
| S-EPMC8162647 | biostudies-literature