Explore the vast range of titles available.

Social workers face complex challenges that demand practice-engaged research and research-engaged practice. Participatory action research and community-based participatory research span the boundaries that often exist between the research and practice communities. Some social workers argue the values underpinning participatory action research and community-based participatory research align with the values of the profession; however, such methodologies are not widely represented in social work research in the US. This article presents the findings of a study examining the lived experiences of 15 early-career scholars, mostly based in the US, who were pursuing participatory action research and community-based participatory research. The neoliberalisation of the academy pervaded their experiences, presenting significant barriers to their ability to pursue action-oriented methodologies. Review of the international participatory action research literature also suggests the US may contrast with other regions in the world like Asia and Latin America, where participatory action research is more robust. Recommendations to better develop participatory action research social work literature are offered.

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.

Structural racism causes stark health inequities and operates at every level of society, including the academic and governmental entities that support health research and practice. We argue that health research institutions must invest in research that actively disrupts racial hierarchies, with leadership from racially marginalized communities and scholars. We highlight synergies between antiracist principles and community-based participatory research (CBPR), examine the potential for CBPR to promote antiracist research and praxis, illustrate structural barriers to antiracist CBPR praxis, and offer examples of CBPR actions taken to disrupt structural racism. We make recommendations for the next generation of antiracist CBPR, including modify health research funding to center the priorities of racially marginalized communities, support sustained commitments and accountability to those communities by funders and research institutions, distribute research funds equitably across community and academic institutions, amplify antiracist praxis through translation of research to policy, and adopt institutional practices that support reflection and adaptation of CBPR to align with emergent community priorities and antiracist practices. A critical application of CBPR principles offers pathways to transforming institutional practices that reproduce and reinforce racial inequities. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(1):70–78. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307114 )

Federal and state health data sets often lack the granularity needed for medically underserved small towns. To address this, we conducted two community health assessment surveys in Knights Landing (KL), a rural agricultural town in California, to identify local healthcare strengths, barriers, and needs. Utilizing a Community‐Based Participatory Action Research (CBPAR) framework, our project centered on a collaboration between academic‐researchers and promotora‐researchers: community leaders who evolved from activists to empowered research partners over a decade. Data from an initial randomized survey in 2013 (N = 88) informed the design of a follow‐up survey in 2018 (N = 100). For the 2018 survey, promotora‐researchers made the executive decision to shift to snowball sampling, which provided a deeper understanding of the health experiences of the clinic's most vulnerable and historically underrepresented populations. Both surveys produced actionable community‐owned data that stimulated significant community organizing, led to expanded services at the student‐led clinic (KLOHC), and cultivated public health investments for Knights Landing. This study demonstrates how a decade‐long partnership, grounded in shared power and evolving into a Community‐Owned and ‐Managed Research (COMR) model, can generate a robust and adaptive health assessment tool. Ultimately, this work highlights the transformative power of community involvement in health research for creating impactful and enduring change. Plain Language Summary Federal and state government agencies manage health data to understand regional health needs, but this information is less helpful to understand needs at a small‐town scale. In Knights Landing, CA, residents decided to identify local health needs and barriers to accessing and affording medical care by administering surveys in their agricultural rural town. Healthcare promoters and local leaders worked alongside academic scholar‐activists and nonprofits to design the surveys, recruit participants, conduct surveys, and interpret survey findings. Local leadership began owning and managing the research project in the 2018 survey after the academic‐led 2013 survey. The survey results led to real changes in Knights Landing like community organizing and new investments. These surveys also helped the local student‐run health clinic offer more services and respond to the needs of residents. This manuscript documents over a decade of teamwork between local resident leaders and academic scholar‐activists based on sharing trust and sharing power while creating a survey that can be customized and serve local priorities. Key Points Community health surveys informed community organizing and the actions of a student‐led nonprofit clinic in Knights Landing, California Promotora‐researchers partnered with academic researchers and nonprofits to conduct this Community‐Based Participatory Action Research Over a decade of collaborative research produced a survey tool that gave rise to localized data based on community‐identified health need

The past two decades have been marked by increased community involvement in the research process. Community-engaged research (CEnR) is increasingly promoted in the literature, and academic programs with a community-academic partnership focus. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is an approach to frame equitable community involvement in research and is a critical component of the CEnR continuum. As with CEnR, noted benefits of using CBPR expressed in the literature, which include enhancing the relevance and application of the research data, expertise to complex problems at all stages of research, overcoming community distrust, and improving community health. This article presents a community engagement (CE) model that includes seven defined designations for CEnR. In addition, this model includes equity indicators and contextual factors for consideration at the various levels of engagement along the continuum. The CE model described in this article combines the principles of CE and CBPR in conjunction with a continuum model. The continuum integrates a focus on health equity and contextual factors providing perspectives from both community and academic partners at each point of engagement. A broadly defined CEnR continuum will allow researchers, community members and organizations to readily identify 1) where they are on the continuum of CEnR, 2) appropriate access points to enter the continuum based on existing contextual factors, and 3) actions to promote progression on the continuum. Funders have the opportunity to specify the appropriate level of CE needed to accomplish the goals of their identified priorities.

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 participatory research (CBPR) is increasingly used by community and academic partners to examine health inequities and promote health equity in communities. Despite increasing numbers of CBPR partnerships, there is a lack of consensus in the field regarding what defines partnership success and how to measure factors contributing to success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Aims. To identify indicators and measures of success in long-standing CBPR partnerships as part of a larger study whose aim is to develop and validate an instrument measuring success across CBPR partnerships. Methods. The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided searches of three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) for articles published between 2007 and 2017 and evaluating success in CBPR partnerships existing longer than 4 years. Results. Twenty-six articles met search criteria. We identified 3 key domains and 7 subdomains with 28 underlying indicators of success. Six partnerships developed or used instruments to measure their success; only one included reliability or validity data. Discussion. CBPR partnerships reported numerous intersecting partner, partnership, and outcome indicators important for success. These results, along with data from key informant interviews with community and academic partners and advisement from a national panel of CBPR experts, will inform development of items for an instrument measuring CBPR partnership success. Conclusion. The development of a validated instrument measuring indicators of success will allow long-standing CBPR partnerships to evaluate their work toward achieving health equity and provide a tool for newly forming CBPR partnerships aiming to achieve long-term success.

Background Conducting research in partnership with stakeholders (e.g. policy-makers, practitioners, organisations, patients) is a promising and popular approach to improving the implementation of research findings in policy and practice. This study aimed to identify the principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts reported in different types of reviews of research partnerships in order to obtain a better understanding of the scope of the research partnership literature. Methods This review of reviews is part of a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to synthesise the research partnership literature with five conceptually linked literature reviews. The main research question was ‘What principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts are reported in different types of research partnership approaches?’. We included articles describing a literature review of research partnerships using a systematic search strategy. We used an adapted version of the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool to assess quality. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2018. Principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts were extracted from the included reviews and analysed using direct content analysis. Results We included 86 reviews using terms describing several research partnership approaches (e.g. community-based participatory research, participatory research, integrated knowledge translation). After the analyses, we synthesised 17 overarching principles and 11 overarching strategies and grouped them into one of the following subcategories: relationship between partners; co-production of knowledge; meaningful stakeholder engagement; capacity-building, support and resources; communication process; and ethical issues related to the collaborative research activities. Similarly, we synthesised 20 overarching outcomes and impacts on researchers, stakeholders, the community or society, and the research process. Conclusions This review of reviews is the first that presents overarching principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships. This review is unique in scope as we synthesised literature across multiple research areas, involving different stakeholder groups. Our findings can be used as a first step to guide the initiation and maintenance of research partnerships and to create a classification system of the key domains of research partnerships, which may improve reporting consistency in the research partnership literature. Trial registration This study is registered via Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GVR7Y .

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.

Introduction. The purpose of this review is to compare and contrast the values, purpose, processes, and outcomes of human-centered design (HCD) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches to address public health issues and to provide recommendations for how HCD can be incorporated into CBPR partnerships and projects. Review Process. By consulting published literature, source materials, and experts on both approaches, a team of researchers completed a three-phased process of synthesizing key similarities and differences between HCD and CBPR and generating recommendations for ways to integrate HCD strategies in CBPR projects. Results. There are five HCD strategies that can be readily incorporated into CBPR projects to improve outcomes: (1) form transdisciplinary teams, (2) center empathy, (3) recruit and work with “extreme users,” (4) rapidly prototype, and (5) create tangible products or services. Conclusions. Integrating HCD in CBPR projects may lead to solutions that potentially have greater reach, are more readily adopted, are more effective, and add innovation to public health services, products, and policies.