ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
A short pragmatic tool for evaluating community engagement: Partnering for Health Improvement and Research Equity.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: As community-engaged research (CEnR), community-based participatory research (CBPR) and patient-engaged research (PEnR) have become increasingly recognized as valued research approaches in the last several decades, there is need for pragmatic and validated tools to assess effective partnering practices that contribute to health and health equity outcomes. This article reports on the co-creation of an actionable pragmatic survey, shortened from validated metrics of partnership practices and outcomes. Methods: We pursued a triple aim of preserving content validity, psychometric properties, and importance to stakeholders of items, scales, and constructs from a previously validated measure of CBRP/CEnR processes and outcomes. There were six steps in the methods: (a) established validity and shortening objectives; (b) used a conceptual model to guide decisions; (c) preserved content validity and importance; (d) preserved psychometric properties; (e) justified the selection of items and scales; and (f) validated the short-form version. Twenty-one CBPR/CEnR experts (13 academic and 8 community partners) completed a survey and participated in two focus groups to identify content validity and importance of the original 93 items. Results: The survey and focus group process resulted in the creation of the 30-item Partnering for Health Improvement and Research Equity (PHIRE) survey. Confirmatory factor analysis and a structural equation model of the original data set resulted in the validation of eight higher-order scales with good internal consistency and structural relationships (TLI > 0.98 and SRMR < 0.02). A reworded version of the PHIRE was administered to an additional sample demonstrating good reliability and construct validity. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the PHIRE is a reliable instrument with construct validity compared to the larger version from which it was derived. The PHIRE is a straightforward and easy-to-use tool, for a range of CBPR/CEnR projects, that can provide benefit to partnerships by identifying actionable changes to their partnering practices to reach their desired research and practical outcomes.
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.