Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30202188›Full record

Trial reportEthnicity & disease2018

Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study.

Thomas R Belin, Andrea Jones, Lingqi Tang, Bowen Chung, Susan E Stockdale, Felica Jones, Aziza Wright, Cathy D Sherbourne, Judy Perlman, Esmeralda Pulido and 6 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ethnicity & disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01699789 (CPIC is a Community Partnered Participatory Research), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

NCT01699789 nacompletednot on this map

CPIC is a Community Partnered Participatory Research (CPPR) Project of Community and Academic Partners Working Together to Learn the Best Way to Reduce Depression in Our Communities.

TypeinterventionalSponsorRANDRan2009 to 2016Enrolled1,246ConditionsDepression, Information Dissemination, Social Determinants of HealthArmsQuality Improvement Program, Resources for Services Expert Team, Community Engagement and Planning Council
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

16 authors.

Thomas R BelinUCLA Department of Biostatistics, Center for Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Andrea JonesHealthy African American Families II, Los Angeles, CA.
Lingqi TangUCLA Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Bowen ChungUCLA Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Susan E StockdaleUCLA Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Felica JonesHealthy African American Families II, Los Angeles, CA.
Aziza WrightHealthy African American Families II, Los Angeles, CA.
Cathy D SherbourneRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Judy PerlmanRAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
Esmeralda PulidoLA Care, Los Angeles, CA.
Michael K OngGreater Los Angeles VA Medical Center, Sepulveda, CA.
James GilmoreBehavioral Health Services, Inc., Gardena, CA.
Jeanne MirandaUCLA Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Elizabeth DixonUCLA School of Nursing, Los Angeles, CA.
Loretta JonesHealthy African American Families II, Los Angeles, CA.
Kenneth B WellsUCLA Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.

Funding

UCLA Clinical Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001881 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI ARLEEN F. BROWN, ARASH NAEIM · 2016 to 2026
$118.1M
UCLA Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000124 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DUBINETT, STEVEN M. · 2012 to 2015
$57.0M
UCLA Rapid, Relevant, Rigorous Implementation Science HubP30MH058107 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Nina Thawata Harawa · 1997 to 2026
$53.5M
The Role of Social Networks in Treatment Engagement for MinoritiesP30MH082760 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI MIRANDA, JEANNE · 2008 to 2012
$8.6M
COMMUNITY PARTNERS IN CARER01MH078853 · NIMH · RAND CORPORATION · PI WELLS, KENNETH B. · 2007 to 2011
$6.0M
Pathways to Reducing Disparities in Depression OutcomesR01MD007721 · NIMHD · RAND CORPORATION · PI MIRANDA, JEANNE, WELLS, KENNETH B. · 2014 to 2017
$1.7M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000124NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001881NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD007721NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH058107NIMH NIH HHS P30 MH082760NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH078853
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research. Methods: Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the study's design committee are highlighted. Results: CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations. Conclusions: Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the study's scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchComparative Effectiveness ResearchAdultDepressionFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansIntersectoral CollaborationMaleMedically Underserved AreaPublic HealthReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignComparative Effectiveness ResearchCPICCPPRDepressionHealth ServiceRandomization

Identifiers

PMID30202188
PMCPMC6128339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.