ArticleHealth education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education2015
Perceptions that influence the maintenance of scientific integrity in community-based participatory research.
Article in Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- 'I am because you are': Community support as a bridge to mental wellbeing for resettled African refugee women living in Rhode Island.Global public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Rethinking success, integrity, and culture in research (part 2) - a multi-actor qualitative study on problems of science.Research integrity and peer review · 2021Article
- Shifting from "Community-Placed" to "Community-Based" Research to Advance Health Equity: A Case Study of the Heatwaves, Housing, and Health: Increasing Climate Resiliency in Detroit (HHH) Partnership.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Convergence Despite Divergence: Views of Academic and Community Stakeholders about the Ethics of Community-Engaged Research.Ethnicity & disease · 2019Article
- Development of a Mixed Methods Investigation of Process and Outcomes of Community-Based Participatory Research.Journal of mixed methods research · 2018Article
- What Goes Around: the process of building a community-based harm reduction research project.Harm reduction journal · 2017Article
- Beyond Body Mass Index: Are Weight-loss Programs the Best Way to Improve the Health of African American Women?Preventing chronic disease · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific integrity is necessary for strong science; yet many variables can influence scientific integrity. In traditional research, some common threats are the pressure to publish, competition for funds, and career advancement. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides a different context for scientific integrity with additional and unique concerns. Understanding the perceptions that promote or discourage scientific integrity in CBPR as identified by professional and community investigators is essential to promoting the value of CBPR. This analysis explores the perceptions that facilitate scientific integrity in CBPR as well as the barriers among a sample of 74 professional and community CBPR investigators from 25 CBPR projects in nine states in the southeastern United States in 2012. There were variations in perceptions associated with team member identity as professional or community investigators. Perceptions identified to promote and discourage scientific integrity in CBPR by professional and community investigators were external pressures, community participation, funding, quality control and supervision, communication, training, and character and trust. Some perceptions such as communication and training promoted scientific integrity whereas other perceptions, such as a lack of funds and lack of trust could discourage scientific integrity. These results demonstrate that one of the most important perceptions in maintaining scientific integrity in CBPR is active community participation, which enables a co-responsibility by scientists and community members to provide oversight for scientific integrity. Credible CBPR science is crucial to empower the vulnerable communities to be heard by those in positions of power and policy making.
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.