Suppr超能文献

25个基于社区的参与性研究项目中的参与水平。

Participation levels in 25 Community-based participatory research projects.

作者信息

Spears Johnson C R, Kraemer Diaz A E, Arcury T A

机构信息

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

出版信息

Health Educ Res. 2016 Oct;31(5):577-86. doi: 10.1093/her/cyw033. Epub 2016 Jul 15.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

1
The Fallacy of Community-Based Research.基于社区研究的谬误
J Gen Intern Med. 2025 Jul 8. doi: 10.1007/s11606-025-09661-w.
8
Play the Pain: A Digital Strategy for Play-Oriented Research and Action.玩味疼痛:面向游戏的研究与行动的数字策略
Front Psychiatry. 2021 Dec 15;12:746477. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.746477. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

4
Dissemination of results in community-based participatory research.社区参与式研究的成果传播。
Am J Prev Med. 2010 Oct;39(4):372-8. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021.
8
Thematic analysis and its reconceptualization as 'saliency analysis'.主题分析及其作为“凸显分析”的再概念化。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010 Apr;15(2):123-5. doi: 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009081. Epub 2009 Sep 17.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验