Dataset Information

Key elements and effects of cardiovascular disease management programs based on community-based participatory research: protocol for a scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are health problems that demonstrate high death and prevalence rates, and exhibit large health inequalities across different socio-economic status. Although interest in community-based participatory research (CBPR) is increasing because of the efforts to improve health equity, not enough literature review has been conducted on CBPR-based CVD management programs. The objective of this scoping review is to identify the key elements that should be considered when developing CBPR-based CVD management programs, and explore the effects of CBPR-based CVD management programs.

Methods

This study will use the databases of PubMed, Cochrane, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) including grey literature. The criteria for selecting literature will be research that was published in or after 2000, applied CBPR, and either developed or implemented CVD management programs. No limit will be placed on the research design or method. Data extraction will be conducted independently by two researchers, and in the case of data mismatch, a consensus will be reached through discussion. The extracted data will be combined through narrative synthesis.

Discussion

This scoping review will identify specific methods in the development and implementation process of CBPR-based CVD management programs, as well as the characteristics of the programs that were shown to be effective. Therefore, it will be able to provide specific guidelines to researchers, government agencies, and local organizations to design and implement participatory health promotion programs related to CVDs.

Systematic review registration

Open Science Framework https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZW2UY.

SUBMITTER: Yang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8464120 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRefugees often face psychosocial complexity and multi-dimensional healthcare needs. Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) methods have been previously employed in designing health programs for refugee communities and in building strong research partnerships in refugee communities. However, the extent to which these communities are involved remains unknown.ObjectiveTo review the evidence on the involvement of refugees in CBPR processes to inform healthcare research.MethodsA scoping review was performed, using Arksey & O'Malley's methodological framework. A literature search in Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and Policy File Index for articles published until August 2020 was conducted. Articles were included if they focused on CBPR, had refugee involvement, and discussed healthcare/health policy.Results4125 articles were identified in the database searches. After removal of duplicates, 2077 articles underwent title and abstract review by two authors, yielding an inter-reviewer kappa-statistic of 0.85. 14 studies were included in the final analysis. The purpose of CBPR use for 6 (42.9%) of the articles was developing and implementing mental health/social support interventions, 5 (35.7%) focused on sexual and reproductive health interventions, 1 (7.1%) focused on domestic violence interventions, 1 (7.1%) focused on cardiovascular disease prevention and 1 (7.1%) focused on parenting interventions. In terms of refugee involvement in the various stages in the research process, 9 (64.3%) articles reported refugees having a role in the inception of the research, no articles reported including refugees in obtaining funding, all articles included refugees in the design of the research study, 10 (71.4%) articles reported having refugees involved in community engagement/recruitment, 8 (57.1%) articles reported involvement throughout the data collection process, 4 (28.6%) articles reported involvement in data analysis, 6 (42.9%) articles reported having refugees involved in knowledge translation/dissemination and 1 article (7.1%) reported having refugees contribute to scale up initiatives.ConclusionsCBPR has been identified as a methodology with the potential to make substantial contributions to improving health and well-being in traditionally disenfranchised populations. As the needs of refugee communities are so diverse, efforts should be made to include refugees as partners in all stages of the research process.

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.