Oetzel John G, Villegas Malia, Zenone Heather, White Hat Emily R, Wallerstein Nina, Duran Bonnie
John G. Oetzel is with the Department of Management Communication, University of Waikato, New Zealand. Malia Villegas and Heather Zenone are with the Policy Research Center at the National Congress of American Indians, Washington, DC. Emily R. White Hat is with the Collaborative Research Center for American Indian Health at Sanford Research, Sioux Falls, SD. Nina Wallerstein is with the Center for Participatory Research at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Bonnie Duran is with the School of Public Health, School of Social Work, and the Indigenous Wellness Research Institute at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Am J Public Health. 2015 Jun;105(6):1161-7. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302457. Epub 2015 Apr 16.
We explored the relationship of community-engaged research final approval type (tribal government, health board, or public health office (TG/HB); agency staff or advisory board; or individual or no community approval) with governance processes, productivity, and perceived outcomes.
We identified 294 federally funded community-engaged research projects in 2009 from the National Institutes of Health's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers, and Native American Research Centers for Health databases. Two hundred (68.0%) investigators completed a survey about governance processes and productivity measures; 312 partners (77.2% of 404 invited) and 138 investigators (69.0% of 200 invited) completed a survey about perceived outcomes.
Projects with TG/HB approval had increased likelihood of community control of resources (odds ratios [ORs] ≥ 4.80). Projects with other approvals had decreased likelihood of development or revision of institutional review board policies (ORs ≤ 0.37), having written agreements (ORs ≤ 0.17), and agreements about publishing (ORs ≤ 0.28), data use (ORs ≤ 0.17), and publishing approval (ORs ≤ 0.14).
Community-engaged research projects with TG/HB approval had strong stewardship of project resources and agreements. Governance as stewardship protects community interests; thus, is an ethical imperative for communities, especially native communities, to adopt.
我们探讨了社区参与研究最终批准类型（部落政府、健康委员会或公共卫生办公室（TG/HB）；机构工作人员或咨询委员会；或个人批准或无社区批准）与治理过程、生产力和感知结果之间的关系。
我们从美国国立卫生研究院的研究项目在线报告工具、疾病控制与预防中心的预防研究中心以及美国原住民健康研究中心数据库中，识别出2009年由联邦资助的294个社区参与研究项目。200名（68.0%）研究人员完成了关于治理过程和生产力指标的调查；312名合作伙伴（占404名受邀者的77.2%）和138名研究人员（占200名受邀者的69.0%）完成了关于感知结果的调查。
获得TG/HB批准的项目，社区控制资源的可能性增加（优势比[ORs]≥4.80）。获得其他批准的项目，机构审查委员会政策制定或修订的可能性降低（ORs≤0.37），签订书面协议的可能性降低（ORs≤0.17），以及在发表、数据使用和发表批准方面达成协议的可能性降低（ORs≤0.28、ORs≤0.17、ORs≤0.14）。
获得TG/HB批准的社区参与研究项目对项目资源和协议有强有力的管理。作为管理的治理保护社区利益；因此，对于社区，尤其是原住民社区来说，采用这种治理是一项道德要求。
