Spears Johnson C R, Kraemer Diaz A E, Arcury T A
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA.
Department of Family and Community Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC 27157, USA
Health Educ Res. 2016 Oct;31(5):577-86. doi: 10.1093/her/cyw033. Epub 2016 Jul 15.
This analysis describes the nature of community participation in National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects, and explores the scientific and social implications of variation in community participation. We conducted in-depth interviews in 2012 with professional and community researchers from 25 CBPR projects in the Southeast US. Interview topics focused on participants' experiences with the nature and conduct of their CBPR project. Projects were rated on community participation in 13 components of research. Projects varied substantially in community participation. Some projects had community participation in only two to three components; others had participation in every component. Some professional researchers were deliberate in their inclusion of community participation in all aspects of research, others had community participation in some aspects, and others were mainly concerned that community members had the opportunity to participate in the study. Findings suggest a need for a standardized rubric for community-based research that facilitates delineation of approaches and procedures that are effective and efficient. Little actual community participation may also result in negative social impacts for communities.
本分析描述了社区参与美国国立卫生研究院和疾病控制与预防中心资助的基于社区的参与性研究(CBPR)项目的性质,并探讨了社区参与差异的科学和社会影响。2012年,我们对美国东南部25个CBPR项目的专业研究人员和社区研究人员进行了深入访谈。访谈主题聚焦于参与者在其CBPR项目的性质和实施方面的经历。根据社区在研究的13个组成部分中的参与情况对项目进行评分。各项目在社区参与方面差异很大。一些项目的社区参与仅涉及两到三个组成部分;其他项目则参与了每个组成部分。一些专业研究人员在研究的各个方面都有意纳入社区参与,另一些人在某些方面有社区参与,还有一些人主要关注社区成员有机会参与研究。研究结果表明,需要一个标准化的基于社区的研究评分标准,以促进对有效和高效的方法及程序的界定。实际社区参与很少也可能给社区带来负面社会影响。