ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2010
A review of advocate-scientist collaboration in federally funded environmental breast cancer research centers.
Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenging dominant breast cancer research agendas: perspectives on the outcomes of the interagency breast cancer and environment research coordinating committee.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019Article
- Creating meaningful partnerships between communities and environmental health researchers: the role of a direct action community organizing agency.Workplace health & safety · 2013Article
- Breast cancer environment centers and advocacy.Environmental health perspectives · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project was the first federally funded study of environmental causes of breast cancer. Although advocates were expected to participate in this study, the details of their participation were not adequately clarified in project guidelines, which resulted in confusion over their role in the project. The Breast Cancer and Environment Research Centers (BCERCs) are funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Cancer Institute; these centers continue to conduct research into environmental links to breast cancer and to clarify advocate-scientist guidelines for collaboration.
objectivesPractitioners in community-based participatory research (CBPR) are grappling with how to improve CBPR projects for all groups involved in breast cancer and environmental studies. The ever-growing body of literature on CBPR elaborates on a number of factors that make CBPR particularly challenging, specifically regarding partnerships between advocate and scientific communities. This study draws on CBPR principles to evaluate advocate-scientist collaboration in the BCERCs.
methodsWe conducted surveys at BCERC annual meetings in 2005 and 2007 and 11 in-depth open-ended interviews with key stakeholders such as primary investigators within the centers to assess the perceptions of the advocates and scientists regarding collaboration between advocates and scientists who were engaged in CBPR studies.
resultsWe found that although participatory guidelines were a focus of BCERCs, underlying differences between advocates and scientists with regard to paradigms of scientific inquiry, priorities, and desired outcomes need to be addressed for more effective collaboration to take place.
conclusionOur findings contribute to the broader CBPR literature by highlighting the role of underlying assumptions that may hinder the collaborative process and suggest the need for continued assessment research into participatory research projects on breast cancer and the environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.