Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29606697›Full record

ArticleProgress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action2018

Establishing New Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships using the Community-Based Participatory Research Charrette Model: Lessons from the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms Study.

Cleo A Samuel, Alexandra F Lightfoot, Jennifer Schaal, Christina Yongue, Kristin Black, Katrina Ellis, Linda Robertson, Beth Smith, Nora Jones, Karen Foley and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Cleo A Samuel
Alexandra F Lightfoot
Jennifer Schaal
Christina Yongue
Kristin Black
Katrina Ellis
Linda Robertson
Beth Smith
Nora Jones
Karen Foley
Jemeia Kollie
Alicia Mayhand
Claire Morse
Fatima Guerrab
Eugenia Eng

Funding

Re-Entry Supplement: Investigation of Oral Microbial Enzymes for the Detection and Treatment of Periodontal DiseaseUL1TR002489 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2018 to 2022
$48.6M
North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UL1TR001111 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$43.9M
Center for Health Promotion and Disease PreventionU48DP005017 · DP · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI AMMERMAN, ALICE S, WHEELER, STEPHANIE BROOKE · 2014 to 2018
$10.9M
Cancer Health Disparities Training ProgramT32CA128582 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SMITH, JENNIFER SUSAN, TATE, DEBORAH F. · 2009 to 2023
$3.4M
Accountability for Cancer Care through Undoing Racism and Equity (ACCURE)R01CA150980 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI CYKERT, SAMUEL NMN, ENG, EUGENIA · 2012 to 2017
$2.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001111NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002489NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP005017NCI NIH HHS R01 CA150980NCI NIH HHS T32 CA128582
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative and equitable approach to research inquiry; however, the process of establishing and maintaining CBPR partnerships can be challenging. There is an ongoing need for innovative strategies that foster partnership development and long-term sustainability. In 2010, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill developed a CBPR charrette model to facilitate stakeholder engagement in translational research.

objectiveTo describe how the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms (CHAMPS) Study leveraged the CBPR charrette process to develop and strengthen its CBPR partnership and successfully implement research objectives.

methodsFourteen CHAMPS community, academic, and medical partners participated in the CBPR charrette. Two co-facilitators guided the charrette application process and in-person discussion of partnership strengths, needs, and challenges. Community experts (CEs) and academic experts (AEs) with extensive experience in CBPR and health disparities provided technical assistance and recommendations during the in-person charrette.

conclusionsOverall, the CHAMPS partnership benefited significantly from the charrette process. Specifically, the charrette process engendered greater transparency, accountability, and trust among CHAMPS partners by encouraging collective negotiation of project goals and implementation, roles and responsibilities, and compensation and communication structures. The process also allowed for the exploration of newly identified challenges and potential solutions with support from CEs and AEs. Furthermore, the charrette also functioned as a catalyst for capacity building among CHAMPS community, academic, and medical partners. Future studies should compare the impact of the CBPR charrette, relative to other approaches, on partnership development and process evaluation outcomes.

Indexed as

Community-Institutional RelationsCancer PainCapacity BuildingCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCooperative BehaviorHumansNeoplasmsTrust

Identifiers

PMID29606697
PMCPMC6542568

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.