Garcia-Huidobro Diego, Allen Michele, Rosas-Lee Maira, Maldonado Francisco, Gutierrez Lois, Svetaz Maria Veronica, Wieling Elizabeth
School of Medicine Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Santiago, Chile University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Health Promot Pract. 2016 Jan;17(1):57-69. doi: 10.1177/1524839915582155. Epub 2015 Apr 13.
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) can help increase the attendance in community programs. Padres Informados, Jovenes Preparados (PIJP) is a program that aims to prevent tobacco and other substance use among Latino youth by promoting positive parenting. Although the trial used CBPR approaches, attendance was inconsistent. In the present study, factors associated with attendance and nonattendance and recommendations to maximize participation were explored in 12 brief feedback discussions (BFDs) with participants and in 10 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with facilitators who delivered PIJP. Content analysis guided two pairs of researchers, who independently coded emerging themes and categories (κ = .86 for BFDs and .73 for IDIs). Data from BFDs and IDIs were merged and interpreted together. We grouped factors that positively affected participation into three categories: individual and family (e.g., motivation), program (e.g., offering food and childcare and having facilitators who are trusted), and research (e.g., having incentives). Barriers to participation were grouped into four categories: individual and family (e.g., family conflicts), sociocultural (e.g., community and cultural beliefs), program (e.g., fixed schedules), and research (e.g., recruitment procedures). Participants provided recommendations to address all types of barriers. Although PIJP used CBPR, complete satisfaction of community needs is difficult. Effective community programs must address participants' needs and preferences.
基于社区的参与式研究（CBPR）有助于提高社区项目的参与率。Padres Informados, Jovenes Preparados（PIJP）是一个旨在通过促进积极育儿来预防拉丁裔青少年吸烟和使用其他毒品的项目。尽管该试验采用了CBPR方法，但参与率并不稳定。在本研究中，通过与参与者进行12次简短反馈讨论（BFD）以及与实施PIJP的协调员进行10次深入访谈（IDI），探讨了与参与和不参与相关的因素以及提高参与度的建议。内容分析由两对研究人员指导，他们独立对新出现的主题和类别进行编码（BFD的κ值为0.86，IDI的κ值为0.73）。BFD和IDI的数据合并后一起进行解释。我们将对参与产生积极影响的因素分为三类：个人和家庭因素（如动机）、项目因素（如提供食物和儿童保育服务以及有值得信赖的协调员）和研究因素（如有激励措施）。参与的障碍分为四类：个人和家庭因素（如家庭冲突）、社会文化因素（如社区和文化信仰）、项目因素（如固定时间表）和研究因素（如招募程序）。参与者针对各类障碍提出了建议。尽管PIJP采用了CBPR，但要完全满足社区需求并不容易。有效的社区项目必须满足参与者的需求和偏好。
