Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20235861›Full record

ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2010

The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: points to consider.

Lainie Friedman Ross, Allan Loup, Robert M Nelson, Jeffrey R Botkin, Rhonda Kost, George R Smith, Sarah Gehlert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

78 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. A Proposal for Addressing Bioethical Concerns Along the 10-Step Framework for Community Engagement.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Ten simple rules for developing a training program.PLoS computational biology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lainie Friedman RossDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Chicago, IL 60637, USA. lross@uchicago.edu
Allan Loup
Robert M Nelson
Jeffrey R Botkin
Rhonda Kost
George R Smith
Sarah Gehlert

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: CLINICAL TRIALSUL1RR024999 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI SOLWAY, JULIAN · 2007 to 2011
$25.3M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024999NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR024999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The philosophical underpinning of Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) entails a collaborative partnership between academic researchers and the community. The Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) model is the partnership model most widely discussed in the CEnR literature and is the primary model we draw upon in this discussion of the collaboration between academic researchers and the community. In CPBR, the goal is for community partners to have equal authority and responsibility with the academic research team, and that the partners engage in respectful negotiation both before the research begins and throughout the research process to ensure that the concerns, interests, and needs of each party are addressed. The negotiation of a fair, successful, and enduring partnership requires transparency and understanding of the different assets, skills and expertise that each party brings to the project. Delineating the expectations of both parties and documenting the terms of agreement in a memorandum of understanding or similar document may be very useful. This document is structured to provide a "points- to-consider" roadmap for academic and community research partners to establish and maintain a research partnership at each stage of the research process.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsBeneficenceCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansInformation DisseminationInformed ConsentModels, TheoreticalNegotiatingPatient SelectionResearch DesignResearch Support as Topic

Identifiers

PMID20235861
PMCPMC2946316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.