Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26213405›Full record

ArticleProgress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action2015

A Tale of Two Community Networks Program Centers: Operationalizing and Assessing CBPR Principles and Evaluating Partnership Outcomes.

Cassandra Arroyo-Johnson, Michele L Allen, Graham A Colditz, G Ali Hurtado, Cynthia S Davey, Vetta L Sanders Thompson, Bettina F Drake, Maria Veronica Svetaz, Maira Rosas-Lee, Melody S Goodman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Success in Long-Standing Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Partnerships: A Scoping Literature Review.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Reaching Consensus on Principles of Stakeholder Engagement in Research.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Community-Based Participatory Research Adds Value to the National Cancer Institute's Research Portfolio.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Cassandra Arroyo-Johnson
Michele L Allen
Graham A Colditz
G Ali Hurtado
Cynthia S Davey
Vetta L Sanders Thompson
Bettina F Drake
Maria Veronica Svetaz
Maira Rosas-Lee
Melody S Goodman

Funding

Training ProgramU54CA153460 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2010 to 2015
$5.3M
Training ProgramU54CA153603 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI OKUYEMI, KOLAWOLE S · 2010 to 2015
$4.3M
NCI NIH HHS U54 CA153460NCI NIH HHS U54 CA153603
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity Networks Program (CNP) centers are required to use a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach within their specific priority communities. Not all communities are the same and unique contextual factors and collaborators' priorities shape each CBPR partnership. There are also established CBPR and community engagement (CE) principles shown to lead to quality CBPR in any community. However, operationalizing and assessing CBPR principles and partnership outcomes to understand the conditions and processes in CBPR that lead to achieving program and project level goals is relatively new in the science of CBPR.

objectivesWe sought to describe the development of surveys on adherence to and implementation of CBPR/CE principles at two CNP centers and examine commonalities and differences in program-versus project-level CBPR evaluation.

methodsA case study about the development and application of CBPR/CE principles for the Missouri CNP, Program for the Elimination of Cancer Disparities, and Minnesota CNP, Padres Informados/Jovenes Preparados, surveys was conducted to compare project versus program operationalization of principles. Survey participant demographics were provided by CNP. Specific domains found in CBPR/CE principles were identified and organized under an existing framework to establish a common ground. Operational definitions and the number of survey items were provided for each domain by CNP.

conclusionThere are distinct differences in operational definitions of CBPR/CE principles at the program and project levels of evaluation. However, commonalities support further research to develop standards for CBPR evaluation across partnerships and at the program and project levels.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity NetworksCooperative BehaviorHumansLeadershipMinority GroupsNational Cancer Institute (U.S.)NeoplasmsProgram DevelopmentRacial GroupsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26213405
PMCPMC4849855

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.