Explore the vast range of titles available.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged in the last decades as a transformative research paradigm that bridges the gap between science and practice through community engagement and social action to increase health equity. CBPR expands the potential for the translational sciences to develop, implement, and disseminate effective interventions across diverse communities through strategies to redress power imbalances; facilitate mutual benefit among community and academic partners; and promote reciprocal knowledge translation, incorporating community theories into the research. We identify the barriers and challenges within the intervention and implementation sciences, discuss how CBPR can address these challenges, provide an illustrative research example, and discuss next steps to advance the translational science of CBPR.

Community-based participatory research [CBPR) has emerged in the past decades as an alternative research paradigm, which integrates education and social action to improve health and reduce health disparities. More than a set of research methods, CBPR is an orientation to research that focuses on relationships between academic and community partners, with principles ofcolearning, mutual benefit, and long-term commitment and incorporates community theories, participation, and practices into the research efforts. As CBPR matures, tensions have become recognized that challenge the mutuality of the research relationship, including issues of power, privilege, participation, community consent, racial and/or ethnic discrimination, and the role of research in social change. This article focuses on these challenges as a dynamic and ever-changing context of the researcher–community relationship, provides examples of these paradoxes from work in tribal communities, discusses the evidence that CBPR reduces disparities, and recommends transforming the culture of academia to strengthen collaborative research relationships.

We examined prevalence of mental health treatment utilization among 447 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and Two-Spirit (LGBTT-S) American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults and the association of mental health treatment utilization with socio-demographic factors, social support, and mental health diagnoses. We derived data from the HONOR Project, a multi-site cross-sectional survey of Native LGBTT-S adults from seven U.S. metropolitan cities. Rates of lifetime mental health treatment utilization were higher for women (87%), those who were college educated (84%), and homeowners (92%). Cisgender women and transgender AI/AN adults had a higher prevalence than cisgender men of major depression, generalized anxiety, and panic disorder. Rates of subthreshold and threshold posttraumatic stress disorder were significantly higher for transgender adults. Lower positive social support and higher emotional social support were associated with greater odds of mental health treatment utilization. Mental health diagnoses and lifetime mental health treatment utilization was positively associated.

The majority of literature on mentoring focuses on mentee training needs, with significantly less guidance for the mentors. Moreover, many mentoring the mentor models assume generic (i.e. White) mentees with little attention to the concerns of underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities (UREM). This has led to calls for increased attention to diversity in research training programs, especially in the field of HIV where racial/ethnic disparities are striking. Diversity training tends to address the mentees’ cultural competency in conducting research with diverse populations, and often neglects the training needs of mentors in working with diverse mentees. In this article, we critique the framing of diversity as the problem (rather than the lack of mentor consciousness and skills), highlight the need to extend mentor training beyond aspirations of cultural competency toward cultural humility and cultural safety, and consider challenges to effective mentoring of UREM, both for White and UREM mentors.

This study examined associations between alcohol misuse and childhood maltreatment and out-of-home placement among urban lesbian, gay, and bisexual (referred to as two-spirit) American Indian and Alaska Native adults. In a multi-site study, data were obtained from 294 individuals who consumed alcohol during the past year. The results indicated that 72.3% of men and 62.4% of women engaged in hazardous and harmful alcohol use and 50.8% of men and 48.7% of women met criteria for past-year alcohol dependence. The most common types of childhood maltreatment were physical abuse among male drinkers (62.7%) and emotional abuse (71.8%) among female drinkers. Men and women reported high percentages of out-of-home placement (39% and 47%, respectively). Logistic multiple regressions found that for male drinkers boarding school attendance and foster care placement were significant predictors of past-year alcohol dependence. For female drinkers, being adopted was significantly associated with a decreased risk of past-year drinking binge or spree. Dose-response relationships, using number of childhood exposures as a predictor, were not significant. The results highlight the need for alcohol and violence prevention and intervention strategies among urban two-spirit individuals.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and community-engaged research have been established in the past 25 years as valued research approaches within health education, public health, and other health and social sciences for their effectiveness in reducing inequities. While early literature focused on partnering principles and processes, within the past decade, individual studies, as well as systematic reviews, have increasingly documented outcomes in community support and empowerment, sustained partnerships, healthier behaviors, policy changes, and health improvements. Despite enhanced focus on research and health outcomes, the science lags behind the practice. CBPR partnering pathways that result in outcomes remain little understood, with few studies documenting best practices. Since 2006, the University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research with the University of Washington’s Indigenous Wellness Research Institute and partners across the country has engaged in targeted investigations to fill this gap in the science. Our inquiry, spanning three stages of National Institutes of Health funding, has sought to identify which partnering practices, under which contexts and conditions, have capacity to contribute to health, research, and community outcomes. This article presents the research design of our current grant, Engage for Equity, including its history, social justice principles, theoretical bases, measures, intervention tools and resources, and preliminary findings about collective empowerment as our middle range theory of change. We end with lessons learned and recommendations for partnerships to engage in collective reflexive practice to strengthen internal power-sharing and capacity to reach health and social equity outcomes.

American Indian/Alaska Native health policy hasn't kept pace with the demographic and social changes of the last 50 years, and the result is that people are suffering needlessly. Duran suggests that in this era of evidence-based public health practice, reforms to AIAN health policy are essential steps toward remediation and reconciliation. Here, she presents some facts and policy recommendations.

Community-based participatory research has a long-term commitment to principles of equity and justice with decades of research showcasing the added value of power-sharing and participatory involvement of community members for achieving health, community capacity, policy, and social justice outcomes. Missing, however, has been a clear articulation of how power operates within partnership practices and the impact of these practices on outcomes. The National Institutes of Health–funded Research for Improved Health study (2009-2013), having surveyed 200 partnerships, then conducted seven in-depth case studies to better understand which partnership practices can best build from community histories of organizing to address inequities. The diverse case studies represented multiple ethnic–racial and other marginalized populations, health issues, and urban and rural areas and regions. Cross-cutting analyses of the qualitative results focus on how oppressive and emancipatory forms of power operate within partnerships in response to oppressive conditions or emancipatory histories of advocacy within communities. The analysis of power was conducted within each of the four domains of the community-based participatory research conceptual model, starting from how contexts shape partnering processes to impact short-term intervention and research outputs, and contribute to outcomes. Similarities and differences in how partnerships leveraged and addressed their unique contexts and histories are presented, with both structural and relational practices that intentionally addressed power relations. These results demonstrate how community members draw from their resilience and strengths to combat histories of injustice and oppression, using partnership principles and practices toward multilevel outcomes that honor community knowledge and leadership, and seek shared power, policy, and community transformation changes, thereby advancing health equity.

Objectives. A key challenge in evaluating the impact of community-based participatory research (CBPR) is identifying what mechanisms and pathways are critical for health equity outcomes. Our purpose is to provide an empirical test of the CBPR conceptual model to address this challenge. Methods. A three-stage quantitative survey was completed: (1) 294 US CBPR projects with US federal funding were identified; (2) 200 principal investigators completed a questionnaire about project-level details; and (3) 450 community or academic partners and principal investigators completed a questionnaire about perceived contextual, process, and outcome variables. Seven in-depth qualitative case studies were conducted to explore elements of the model not captured in the survey; one is presented due to space limitations. Results. We demonstrated support for multiple mechanisms illustrated by the conceptual model using a latent structural equation model. Significant pathways were identified, showing the positive association of context with partnership structures and dynamics. Partnership structures and dynamics showed similar associations with partnership synergy and community involvement in research; both of these had positive associations with intermediate community changes and distal health outcomes. The case study complemented and extended understandings of the mechanisms of how partnerships can improve community conditions. Conclusions. The CBPR conceptual model is well suited to explain key relational and structural pathways for impact on health equity outcomes.