Center for Reducing Health Disparities, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Clin Transl Sci. 2014 Apr;7(2):141-4. doi: 10.1111/cts.12149. Epub 2014 Mar 21.
To determine how grant funds are shared between academic institutions and community partners in community-based participatory research (CBPR).
Review of all 62 investigator-initiated R01 CBPR grants funded by the National Institutes of Health from January 2005 to August 2012. Using prespecified criteria, two reviewers independently categorized each budget item as being for an academic institution or a community partner. A third reviewer helped resolve any discrepancies.
Among 49 evaluable grants, 68% of all grant funds were for academic institutions and 30% were for community partners. For 2% of funds, it was unclear whether they were for academic institutions or for community partners. Community partners' share of funds was highest in the categories of other direct costs (62%) and other personnel (48%) and lowest in the categories of equipment (1%) and indirect costs (7%).
A majority of CBPR grant funds are allocated to academic institutions. In order to enhance the share that community partners receive, funders may wish to specify a minimum proportion of grant funds that should be allocated to community partners in CBPR projects.
确定在社区参与式研究(CBPR)中,赠款资金在学术机构和社区合作伙伴之间如何分配。
对 2005 年 1 月至 2012 年 8 月期间由美国国立卫生研究院资助的 62 项由调查员发起的 R01 CBPR 赠款进行了审查。使用预先规定的标准,两名评审员独立地将每个预算项目归类为学术机构或社区合作伙伴。第三名评审员协助解决任何差异。
在 49 项可评估的赠款中,68%的赠款资金用于学术机构,30%用于社区合作伙伴。对于 2%的资金,不清楚它们是用于学术机构还是社区合作伙伴。在其他直接费用(62%)和其他人员(48%)类别中,社区合作伙伴的资金份额最高,在设备(1%)和间接费用(7%)类别中最低。
大多数 CBPR 赠款资金分配给学术机构。为了增加社区合作伙伴获得的份额,资助者可能希望在 CBPR 项目中指定应分配给社区合作伙伴的赠款资金的最低比例。