Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Background Community-based physical activity (PA) programs are appealing to women in Latin America and show potential for improving women’s health. This study aimed to engage healthy middle-aged women, breast cancer survivors and local stakeholders participating in two publicly funded community-based PA programs in Bogotá, Colombia ( Recreovía and My Body ) to assess and visually map the perceived barriers, facilitators, and outcomes to promote programs’ improvement, scaling and sustainability. Methods We used two participatory action research methods, the 1) Our Voice citizen science method to capture data and drive local change in built and social environmental facilitators and barriers that influence women’s engagement in community-based PA; and 2) Ripple Effects Mapping to visually map the intended and unintended outcomes of PA programs. We used thematic analysis to classify the results at the individual, social, and community levels. Results The stakeholders engaged in the participatory evaluation included cross-sector actors from the programs ( N  = 6) and program users (total N  = 34) from the two programs ( Recreovía N  = 16; My Body N  = 18). Program users were women with a mean age of 55.7 years (SD = 8.03), 65% lived in low-income neighborhoods. They identified infrastructure as the main feature affecting PA, having both positive (e.g., appropriate facilities) and negative (e.g., poorly built areas for PA) effects. Regarding program improvements, stakeholders advocated for parks’ cleaning, safety, and appropriate use. The most highlighted outcomes were the expansion and strengthening of social bonds and the engagement in collective wellbeing, which leveraged some participants’ leadership skills for PA promotion strategies in their community. The facilitated dialogue among program users and stakeholders fostered the sustainability and expansion of the community-based PA programs, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions The implementation of both participatory methodologies provided a multidimensional understanding of the programs’ impacts and multisectoral dialogues that fostered efforts to sustain the community-based PA programs.

Abstract The purpose of this study was to Produce prescription (PPR) programs aim to improve fruit and vegetable (FV) access and health outcomes by providing FVs and nutrition education to participants with low income. While PPRs show promise in increasing FV intake and reducing food insecurity, more research is needed to understand effective implementation. To determine how PPRs work in different settings, and to describe implementation characteristics. In-depth interviews were conducted with PPR project implementers using a semi-structured guide based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). PPR sites were selected through maximum variation and interviewees at each site were selected using snowball sampling. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo software using a deductive codebook, with two researchers coding each interview. Interviewees included 33 individuals across 13 PPR projects. The analysis identified themes across CFIR constructs: (i) project characteristics (e.g. eligibility, nutrition education, adaptations to local context, relative advantage, cost), (ii) characteristics of individuals (e.g. participants, food retailers, healthcare staff, role delineation, networks), (iii) evidence (e.g. economic impact, FV Intake, household food security and health-related outcomes, scope and impact), (iv) implementation climate (e.g. project genesis, alignment with organization values, leadership engagement, geography, technology), and (v) challenges (e.g. COVID-19 impacts, capacity limitations). Interviewees also provided recommendations for resources that would be helpful in their PPR implementation, such as “plug and play” materials to reduce setup burden. This study highlights PPR implementation characteristics, which can elucidate which features may be most effective in particular contexts. There was also an identified need for further investigation into fostering healthcare organization buy-in and engagement. PPR programs from across the USA were interviewed to determine factors influencing effective implementation. Lay Summary Research has shown that PPR programs are a viable and effective solution to address healthy food access and food security among populations with low income and risk for chronic diseases. There is a lack of evidence to inform scaling of PPR programs, such as understanding how programs operate across settings and the role that implementation characteristics (i.e. program components and strategies that may impact success and scalability) play. This study provides a foundational understanding of barriers and facilitators that influence implementation success of PPR programs.

The morbidity and mortality experiences of people who are unhoused have been well-described, but much less is known about the overall well-being of these individuals. In this mixed methods study, housed and unhoused participants completed a multi-faceted 10 domain measure of well-being (the Stanford WELL Survey), and a subset of unhoused participants shared their experiences during qualitative interviews. Using propensity score matching, unhoused participants (n = 51) were matched at a ratio of 1:5 with housed participants (n = 255). The mean overall well-being score of the unhoused participants was significantly lower than that of the matched housed participants (B = −5.022, p = 0.013). Additionally, the two groups differed on some of the constituent domains of well-being, with unhoused participants reporting statistically significantly lower mean scores on social connectedness (B = −1.086, p = 0.000), lifestyle and daily practices (B = −1.219, p = 0.000), stress and resilience (B = −0.493, p = 0.023), experience of emotions (B = −0.632, p = 0.009), physical health (B = −0.944, p = 0.0001), and finances (B = −3.099, p = 0.000). The unhoused participants had a statistically significantly higher mean score for spirituality and religiosity (B = 2.401, p = 0.000) than their matched housed counterparts. The qualitative interviews further highlighted spirituality and religion as a coping mechanism for the unhoused. The results of this study highlight both unexpected strengths exhibited by the unhoused individuals and areas of challenge.

The exponential growth of health information technology has the potential to facilitate community engagement in research. However, little is known about the use of health information technology in community-engaged research, such as which types of health information technology are used, which populations are engaged, and what are the research outcomes. The objectives of this scoping review were to examine studies that used health information technology for community engagement and to assess (1) the types of populations, (2) community engagement strategies, (3) types of health information technology tools, and (4) outcomes of interest. We searched PubMed and PCORI Literature Explorer using terms related to health information technology, health informatics, community engagement, and stakeholder involvement. This search process yielded 967 papers for screening. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, a total of 37 papers were analyzed for key themes and for approaches relevant to health information technology and community engagement research. This analysis revealed that the communities engaged were generally underrepresented populations in health-related research, including racial or ethnic minority communities such as Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Latino ethnicity, and communities from low socioeconomic backgrounds. The studies focused on various age groups, ranging from preschoolers to older adults. The studies were also geographically spread across the United States and the world. Community engagement strategies included collaborative development of health information technology tools and partnerships to promote use (encompassing collaborative development, use of community advisory boards, and focus groups for eliciting information needs) and use of health information technology to engage communities in research (eg, through citizen science). The types of technology varied across studies, with mobile or tablet-based apps being the most common platform. Outcomes measured included eliciting user needs and requirements, assessing health information technology tools and prototypes with participants, measuring knowledge, and advocating for community change. This study illustrates the current landscape at the intersection of health information technology tools and community-engaged research approaches. It highlights studies in which various community-engaged research approaches were used to design culturally centered health information technology tools, to promote health information technology uptake, or for engagement in health research and advocacy. Our findings can serve as a platform for generating future research upon which to expand the scope of health information technology tools and their use for meaningful stakeholder engagement. Studies that incorporate community context and needs have a greater chance of cocreating culturally centered health information technology tools and better knowledge to promote action and improve health outcomes.

Abstract Multilevel interventions are increasingly recommended to increase physical activity (PA) but can present evaluation challenges. Participatory qualitative evaluation methods can complement standard quantitative methods by identifying participant-centered outcomes and potential mechanisms of individual and community-level change. We assessed the feasibility and utility of Ripple Effects Mapping (REM), a novel qualitative method, within the context of a multi-level cluster randomized trial, Steps for Change. Housing sites with ethnically diverse, low-income aging adults were randomized to a PA behavioral intervention alone or in combination with a citizen science-based intervention (Our Voice) for promoting PA-supportive neighborhoods. Four REM sessions were conducted after 12 months of intervention and involved six housing sites (n = 35 participants) stratified by intervention arm. Interviews (n = 5) were also conducted with housing site staff. Sessions leaders engaged participants in visually mapping intended and unintended outcomes of intervention participation and participant-driven solutions to reported challenges. Maps were analyzed using Excel and Xmind 8 Pro and data were classified according to the socio-ecological model. Eight themes were identified for outcomes, challenges, and solutions. Most themes (6/8) were similar across intervention arms, including increasing PA and PA tracking, improving health outcomes, and increasing social connectedness. Groups (n = 2) engaged in Our Voice additionally identified increased community knowledge and activities directly impacting local environmental change (e.g., pedestrian infrastructure changes). Housing staff interviews revealed additional information to enhance future intervention recruitment, sustainability, and implementation. Such qualitative methodologies can aid in evaluating multi-level, multi-component interventions and inform future intervention optimization, implementation, and dissemination. This first-generation study explored the feasibility and value of applying a novel participatory evaluation method, called Ripple Effects Mapping, within a behavioral lifestyle intervention trial to assess participant-centered outcomes, inform future intervention optimization and implementation, and complement more traditional researcher-driven evaluation measures. Lay Summary Improving lifestyle behaviors is a complex task. Interventions to support such change often have multiple components, making their evaluation difficult. Within the context of an intervention trial delivered at senior public housing sites and designed to increase physical activity among ethno-racially diverse aging adults, we assessed the utility of a novel method, called Ripple Effects Mapping (REM), in identifying useful information for additional refinement of the interventions being studied. We facilitated REM sessions across 6 study sites. Using this method, we were able to uncover useful information, including expected and unexpected outcomes of the interventions from the perspective of the participants themselves. We also learned about participants’ own challenges and solutions to problems they encountered during the intervention period, and how these kinds of interventions can be further revised to be most helpful in other settings and with similar populations. Thus, these types of participant-centered methods are feasible and can complement more traditional, investigator-driven evaluation efforts, particularly for complex interventions or those with multiple components. They can also inform scientists about the outcomes most valued by participants, how those outcomes came about, and how future interventions can enhance and sustain healthy behavior change over time. Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract

Despite the central role that patient and community engagement plays in translational science and health equity research, there remain significant institutional barriers for researchers and their community partners to engage in this work meaningfully and sustainably. The goal of this paper is to describe the process and outcomes of Engage for Equity PLUS at Stanford School of Medicine, which was aimed at understanding and addressing institutional barriers and facilitators for community-engaged research (CEnR). A Stanford champion team of four faculty and two community partners worked with the University of New Mexico team to conduct two workshops ( = 26), focus groups ( = 2), interviews with leaders ( = 4), and an Institutional Multi-Stakeholder Survey ( = 35). These data were employed for action planning to identify strategies to build institutional support for CEnR. Findings revealed several key institutional barriers to CEnR, such as the need to modify organizational policies and practices to expedite and simplify CEnR administration, silos in collaboration, and the need for capacity building. Facilitators included several offices devoted to and engaging in innovative CEnR efforts. Based on these findings, action planning resulted in three priorities: 1) Addressing IRB barriers, 2) Addressing barriers in post-award policies and procedures, and 3) Increasing training in CEnR within Stanford and for community partners. Addressing institutional barriers is critical for Academic Medical Centers and their partners to meaningfully and sustainably engage in CEnR. The Engage for Equity PLUS process offers a roadmap for Academic Medical Centers with translational science and health equity goals.

The continued momentum toward equity-based, patient/community-engaged research (P/CenR) is pushing health sciences to embrace principles of community-based participatory research. Much of this progress has hinged on individual patient/community-academic partnered research projects and partnerships with minimal institutional support from their academic health institutions. We partnered with three academic health institutions and used mixed methods (i.e., institution-wide survey ( = 99); qualitative interviews with institutional leadership ( = 11); and focus group discussions (6 focus groups with patients and community members ( = 22); and researchers and research staff ( = 9)) to gain a deeper understanding of the institutional context. Five key themes emerged that were supported by quantitative data. First, the global pandemic and national events highlighting social injustices sparked a focus on health equity in academic institutions; however, (theme 2) such a focus did not always translate to support for P/CenR nor align with institutional reputation. Only 52% of academics and 79% of community partners believed that the institution is acting on the commitment to health equity (Χ = 6.466, < 0.05). Third, institutional structures created power imbalances and community mistrust which were identified as key barriers to P/CenR. Fourth, participants reported that institutional resources and investments are necessary for recruitment and retention of community-engaged researchers. Finally, despite challenges, participants were motivated to transform current paradigms of research and noted that accountability, communication, and training were key facilitators. Triangulating findings from this mixed-methods study revealed critical barriers which provide important targets for interventions to improving supportive policies and practices toward equity-based P/CenR.

Community-Engaged Research (CEnR) and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) require validated measures and metrics for evaluating research partnerships and outcomes. There is a need to adapt and translate existing measures for practical use with diverse and non-English-speaking communities. This paper describes the Spanish translation and adaptation of Engage for Equity's Community Engagement Survey (E CES), a nationally validated and empirically-supported CEnR evaluation tool, into the full-length \" ,\" and a pragmatic shorter version \" \" (FUERTES). Community and academic partners from the mainland US, Puerto Rico, and Nicaragua participated in translating and adapting E CES, preserving content validity, psychometric properties, and importance to stakeholders of items, scales, and CBPR constructs (contexts, partnership processes, intervention and research actions, and outcomes). Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and convergent validity was assessed via a correlation matrix among scales. respondents ( = 57) self-identified as primarily Latinos/as/x (97%), female (74%), and academics (61%). Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.72 to 0.88 for items in the context domain to 0.90-0.92 for items in the intervention/research domain. Correlations were found as expected among subscales, with the strongest relationships found for subscales within the same CBPR domain. Results informed the creation of FUERTES. and FUERTES offer CEnR/CBPR practitioners two validated instruments for assessing their research partnering practices, and outcomes. Moreover, FUERTES meets the need for shorter pragmatic tools. These measures can further strengthen CEnR/CBPR involving Latino/a/x communities within the US, Latin America, and globally.

Lack of trust in biomedical research, government, and health care systems, especially among racial/ethnic minorities and under-resourced communities, is a longstanding issue rooted in social injustice. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted existing health and socioeconomic inequities and increased the urgency for solutions to provide access to timely, culturally, and linguistically appropriate evidence-based information about COVID-19; and ultimately to promote vaccine uptake. California’s statewide alliance STOP COVID-19 CA (comprising eleven sites), leverages long standing community partnerships to better understand concerns, misinformation, and address racial/ethnic inequities in vaccine hesitancy and uptake. Using data from the California CEAL Communication Working Group, we demonstrate the wide range of strategies, communication methods, languages, and trusted messengers that have been effective in reaching diverse communities across the state. We also showcase challenges and lessons learned, such as the importance of including trusted community partners to share information or provide vaccines. These approaches, rooted in community engagement, are crucial for addressing inequities and responding to future public health emergencies.