About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Environmental and Public Health
Volume 2015 (2015), Article ID 191856, 15 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/191856
Review Article

Successful Strategies to Engage Research Partners for Translating Evidence into Action in Community Health: A Critical Review

1Participatory Research at McGill, Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montreal, QC, Canada H3S 1Z1
2Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montreal, QC, Canada H3S 1Z1
3Department of Kinesiology & Physical Education, McGill University, 475 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, Canada H2W 1S4
4Department of Family Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, Canada N6A 3K6

Received 17 October 2014; Accepted 1 February 2015

Academic Editor: Habibul Ahsan

Copyright © 2015 Jon Salsberg et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives. To undertake a critical review describing key strategies supporting development of participatory research (PR) teams to engage partners for creation and translation of action-oriented knowledge. Methods. Sources are four leading PR practitioners identified via bibliometric analysis. Authors’ publications were identified in January 1995–October 2009 in PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science and CAB databases, and books. Works were limited to those with a process description describing a research project and practitioners were first, second, third, or last author. Results. Adapting and applying the “Reliability Tested Guidelines for Assessing Participatory Research Projects” to retained records identified five key strategies: developing advisory committees of researchers and intended research users; developing research agreements; using formal and informal group facilitation techniques; hiring co-researchers/partners from community; and ensuring frequent communication. Other less frequently mentioned strategies were also identified. Conclusion. This review is the first time these guidelines were used to identify key strategies supporting PR projects. They proved effective at identifying and evaluating engagement strategies as reported by completed research projects. Adapting these guidelines identified gaps where the tool was unable to assess fundamental PR elements of power dynamics, equity of resources, and member turnover. Our resulting template serves as a new tool to measure partnerships.

1. Introduction

The creation and timely translation of action-oriented knowledge can rest on meaningful engagement with end-users, even before the research begins [1, 2]. Participatory research (PR) (following Cargo and Mercer [3] and Green et al. [4] and we use PR as an umbrella term to include all partnered research, including community-based participatory research (CBPR), action research, participatory action research, participatory evaluation, community engagement and patient engagement), and community engagement continue to attract increased attention as an approach to research, requiring formation of teams of researchers in partnerships with those affected by the issue under study in the community [35] and those who will utilize the results to effect change [6, 7]. Overall, the literature suggests that the PR partnership approach increases the relevance of research questions [3, 5, 8], with the potential for effective knowledge translation [9, 10], leading to faster uptake of evidence into practice [11]. For these reasons research granting agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), are increasingly requiring that researchers partner with community members, patients, health professionals, health organisations, and policy makers, resulting in many more researchers adopting a participatory approach.

In 1995, Green and colleagues developed guidelines intended to allow reviewers of funding agencies to assess stakeholders’ engagement in PR projects [4, 12]. In 2008, these guidelines were further refined and reliability was tested to develop the Reliability Tested Guidelines for Assessing Participatory Research Projects [13] as a tool to (i) help funding agencies and peer reviewers to assess the participatory nature of proposals submitted for funding as participatory research; (ii) aid evaluators in assessing the extent to which projects meet participatory research criteria; and (iii) assist researchers and intended users of the research (i.e., nonacademic partners) in strengthening the participatory nature of their project proposals and applications for funding [12, 13]. In 2009 van Olphen et al. [14] applied these guidelines for the first time, to a single project to assess to what extent their research was participatory as perceived by community, advocacy, and scientific partners. The authors concluded that this had been a very useful undertaking and that “further research should focus on the adaptation of PR principles to assist in evaluating the process and outcomes of PR [14].”

As the principles of the PR approach are used in a wide variety of research and contexts, there is a need to explore the following questions: What are the key processes of PR and what are the practical ways to achieve equitable partnerships? What processes support the constant negotiation between all team members for research goals and objectives, partner roles and responsibilities, and decision-making procedures, together with balancing knowledge generation with the need for action? Therefore, the purpose of this study is to build on recommendations [14] and use the 2008 Reliability Tested Guidelines to undertake a critical literature review of PR projects to synthesize key practical strategies that foster a successful PR process, resulting in continuous discussions between partners that will in turn facilitate knowledge translation activities throughout the research [15].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources

A critical review goes beyond the description of primary studies and includes an empirical analysis for exploring new ideas [16]. While critical reviews are criticized for their nonsystematic approach, “the ‘critical’ component of this type of review is key to its value” [16].

To begin, a multidisciplinary bibliographic database (ISI Web of Science) was searched using the phrase “participatory research” for all articles from 1995 (when the initial PR guidelines were published) until October 2009 (which was the year after the Reliability Tested Guidelines were published). Results of this search yielded 1866 publications. These were then imported into CiteSpace—a bibliometric network analysis tool (http://cluster.cis.drexel.edu/~cchen/citespace/)—which generated a map of author-citation frequency. Results contained foundational PR scholars such as Paulo Freire and theoreticians including Peter Reason as well as those with practical PR experience. Our selection tool eliminated theoretical/foundational authors and retained only authors that have conducted practical PR studies. For this review we needed to limit the size of the study and chose to retain only the top four leading PR practitioners using their CiteSpace centrality scores: Barbara A. Israel, Meredith Minkler, Nina Wallerstein, and Ann C. Macaulay (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Next, a librarian-mediated search was conducted for all published materials by these four authors in PubMed, Embase, ISI Web of Science, PsychInfo, and CAB (Ovid database) for abstracts between January 1995 and October 2009. In addition we also reviewed chapters from books edited by these authors [1719]. Duplicates were removed, for a total of 151 records (title, authors, source, and abstract).

2.2. Study Selection

A staged selection process was then completed to limit the sample using eligibility criteria. First, records were excluded when one of the abovementioned PR leaders was neither one of the first three authors nor the last author () to ensure that the leader had substantive input into the work. The second step excluded records that were not PR related (). The third step excluded records that did not contain any description of the PR process () or records that contained only the theory of PR (). In the final step, records were excluded when they did not contain useful excerpts (), leaving 54 retained records (Figure 2).

Figure 2
2.3. Data Extraction

We conducted a deductive qualitative thematic analysis to extract useful data from our sample of documents [20]. For each of the 54 retained documents, relevant excerpts were selected and compiled in a Word document and organized by theme. These themes were derived from the partnership-related dimensions of the Reliability Tested Guidelines for Assessing Participatory Research Projects [13]. These guidelines contain 25 questions, 21 of which target the PR partnership process, making them very suitable to serve as themes for data extraction and analysis. These questions informed our coding scheme to identify PR process strategies. Using a coding grid based upon these questions (Table 1), partnership process-specific excerpts from the retained documents were extracted for analysis. Each retained document was reviewed in its entirety, and all excerpts in those documents that directly answered one of the questions were extracted and compiled in a matrix of “data by theme” for further analysis. Data coding was nonexclusive, and each excerpt could be coded to one or more questions on the coding grid.

Table 1: Data abstraction questions and rationale based on Mercer and colleagues [13] guidelines.
2.4. Data Analysis

Data abstraction and coding were undertaken by one author (David Parry) using nonspecialized software (MS Word), which is appropriate for a deductive qualitative data analysis using a limited number of themes (codes). Each excerpt extracted from the retained documents was assigned to one or more themes, which was verified by a second author (Pierre Pluye or Jon Salsberg). Disagreements were discussed for possible resolution, and any that could not be resolved were adjudicated by a third party (Jon Salsberg for Pierre Pluye and vice versa). Using a constant comparative technique, themes were collapsed into overarching categories. These categories were generated through initial and focused coding techniques by comparing and contrasting text segments and sorting codes into conceptually meaningful units [21]. For example, subthemes such as “advisory committee,” “steering committee,” and “planning committee” were all grouped under the main theme “committee.”

3. Results

Table 2 presents the references of the 54 documents that were retained for analysis and are organized by the four main authors. From these documents, 186 excerpts were assigned or coded to one or more than one theme. Of those, there was agreement between the reviewers for 180 (97%) of excerpts. For the six remaining excerpts where there was disagreement, consensus was reached on five, and final judgment was sought from a third author (Jon Salsberg) for one excerpt.

Table 2: Summary of retained records for review organized by author.

The five most frequently mentioned strategies for fostering a researcher-community partnership are listed (unranked) and described in Table 3. These are forming an advisory board, developing a research agreement, using group facilitation techniques, hiring from the community, and having frequent meetings.

Table 3: Summary and description of the most frequently mentioned strategies for developing a research-community partnership.

The remaining less frequently mentioned strategies are summarized in Table 4, which we felt could not be collapsed into categories without losing individual substance. However we consider these examples as also being extremely important for researchers to put into practice, including the need for researchers to make active efforts to reach out and learn about their partners and their communities; facilitating engagement by being flexible and working around schedules of the partners; understanding community priorities and culture; establishing clear lines of communication; speaking frankly and agreeing to disagree; building community capacity; supporting partners interpretation of data; publishing results in community; including nonacademic partners as copresenters and coauthors; working with community partners to build resources based on results; using the results to influence policy; and regular evaluation of the partnerships.

Table 4: Summary and description of less frequently mentioned strategies for developing a research-community partnership.

4. Discussion

This is a first step in a larger research agenda to identify variation in PR practices across contexts and partnership stages that could in the future be drawn on to answer the question of efficacy of PR practices. As this review was exploratory and not systematic, we decided to include a purposeful sample of included studies. CiteSpace helped us to elicit a criterion for a purposeful sampling. The rationale was that most cited papers for our review played a role similar to “key informants” in primary research. Given that this study had limited resources, we focused on the top four authors (most popular “key information resources”).

From the four authors identified, committees such as steering committees and advisory committees are the most frequently mentioned strategy as a way to engage key stakeholders around the table from the beginning—including patients, practitioners, service managers, communities and the public, and policy makers. The second most frequently mentioned strategy is drafting research agreements, which some recommend should be done early in the partnership in order to avoid misunderstandings and because the process of developing written agreements or partnership principles is in itself a partnership building process [72, 74]. However, the authors of this paper are also aware of teams who have not wanted a written agreement, either for cultural reasons where a verbal agreement is deemed very final, or due to the fact that it could be construed to imply lack of trust between the researchers and the partners. Our review results show that group facilitation is often suggested as a way to offer equal opportunity for partners to participate in discussions and to afford more reserved partners the chance to voice their opinion. Facilitation includes informal group discussions and formal techniques with many techniques borrowed from management. Hiring staff from the community increases credibility of the research, adds cultural relevance, builds capacity, promotes empowerment, provides work, brings in finances, and integrates knowledge translation throughout the process. Finally, frequent meetings are essential to maintain open communication as research evolves and to manage different expectations.

Table 4 shows many other additional practical strategies and supports the importance of meeting the needs of various partnerships in a wide range of contexts. It also emphasises the need for researchers to learn more about community issues and fully engage community members throughout the research process including interpretation of data and dissemination of results both internally within the community where the research was undertaken and externally.

To our knowledge, this is the first time the Reliability Tested Guidelines have been used to undertake a critical literature review to document PR partnership processes. The strengths of this review include (i) using a bibliometric methodology to identify leading PR practitioners, (ii) a comprehensive identification of PR studies conducted by these authors, (iii) a transparent selection of relevant documents describing PR partnership processes, and (iv) a reproducible deductive qualitative data thematic analysis using the Reliability Tested Guidelines as basis for a coding scheme to analyze relevant excerpts from retained documents. This critical review has also identified that the four authors reviewed utilise these processes and also reestablished the Reliability Tested Guidelines as reliable criteria by which to measure partnerships.

It is noteworthy that four or fewer excerpts were identified for the following Reliability Tested Guidelines dimensions: mutual learning (Q8), conflict resolution over interpretation of results (Q14), and data ownership and sharing (Q15). This is surprising considering that mutual learning is a fundamental PR principle and the latter two are key issues to be resolved for any PR project. More literature on these topics would be very useful; for example, Jagosh and colleagues found that successful conflict resolution led to further strengthening of the teams [75].

This review also highlights gaps that the Reliability Tested Guidelines do not address. These include (i) the issues of power dynamics and recommendations for ways of decentralizing power and decision-making either through subcommittees or through a high level of local control, (ii) ways to address issues of equity of resources, that is, equitable sharing of resources across community organizations and researchers, or providing grants or other funding to participating community-based organizations, and (iii) the common problem of adding or replacing new members throughout the project—which causes shifting group dynamics. We also recognize that more other human aspects of partnerships have not been addressed, including the time needed to consolidate partnerships, issues of power differences, personality clashes, and institutional cultures.

There is much diversity in the strategies discussed by the four PR leaders. This is particularly encouraging for three reasons. First, it suggests that PR is highly adaptable to many contexts and settings and the iterative nature of this research approach. As PR is rapidly expanding beyond its earlier application in health promotion with marginalized communities, this adaptability will become increasingly important for partnerships with new types of communities including communities of practice and organizations such as practice-based research networks [76] and also for partnering with patients and policy makers. Second, research teams can find many strategies in the results to draw upon when starting out. A given strategy does not always work for a given context and the whole team can discuss potential alternative strategies. Third, the diversity of results reinforces the notion that the PR process is an active, iterative endeavour, requiring energy and flexibility from all partners. The findings are supported by other authors including a critical review by Cargo and Mercer [3] and incorporated by Wallerstein and Duran [10] in a conceptual logic model of community-based participatory research. For those embarking on PR there are recommendations and training curricula from individual teams [7678] and organisations [74, 7981] on how to build PR teams and maintain equitable partnerships throughout the research process, including dissemination of the results. There are also an increasing number of publications on the experiences of both academic [82] and community [83, 84] team members from their participatory research experiences and documented common characteristics of successful community-institutional partnerships [85].

While this review provided an innovative synthesis of key PR strategies for researchers using a PR approach, a limitation is that it is based on only four authors’ publications. Because the review included book chapters not limited to the word count restrictions of journal articles we may have captured more details than from journal articles alone. There are no standard recommendations for reporting on PR; from this review we recommend that journal editors require the key stages from the Reliability Tested Guidelines to be included, which would facilitate future synthesis. Our results consist of strategies that could be tested and explored in greater detail through a larger systematic literature review, which may include more detailed descriptions of applied strategies for planning and sustaining PR partnerships. Such a systematic review might be able to rank these strategies in terms of their effectiveness in different contexts, which would first require further basic research into the efficacy of particular participatory strategies and their effectiveness in generating and translating new knowledge into action. As PR is becoming more accepted, this new evidence is slowly emerging within the fields of participatory research as well as in implementation and translational science.

5. Conclusion

This review is the first to adapt the Reliability Tested Guidelines for Assessing Participatory Research Projects to identify leading processes that support PR partnerships. Five key practical strategies to foster a successful PR process are identified that in turn integrate knowledge translation throughout the research process. Some of these results have already been incorporated into the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research [81]. One colleague remarked, “I will print these 5 strategies in big color letters and pin them in front of my desk. No one can remember 25 questions, while anybody can handle 5 ideas per day.” The guidelines, originally intended to allow funders to assess partnership engagement in grant applications, proved effective at identifying and evaluating the same engagement strategies as reported by completed research projects. Adapting these guidelines for our use identified gaps where the tool was unable to assess the fundamental PR elements of power dynamics, equity of resources, and member turnover. Our resulting template serves as a new tool for research teams to apply to measure their own partnerships.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially supported through a grant from the Lawson Foundation, ON, Canada.

References

  1. S. Bowen and I. D. Graham, “Integrated Knowledge Translation,” in Knowledge Translation in Healthcare: Moving from Evidence to Practice, E. Straus, J. Tetroe, and I. D. Graham, Eds., pp. 14–23, Wiley/BMJ Books, Oxford, UK, 2013. View at Google Scholar
  2. J. Salsberg, A. C. Macaulay, and D. Parry, “Guide to integrated knowledge translation research,” in Turning Knowledge into Action: Practical Guidance on How to Do Integrated Knowledge Translation Research, I. D. Graham, J. Tetroe, and A. Pearson, Eds., pp. 178–182, Wolters Kluwer, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, JBI, Adelaide, Australia, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  3. M. Cargo and S. L. Mercer, “The value and challenges of participatory research: strengthening its practice,” Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 29, pp. 325–350, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. L. W. Green, M. A. George, M. Daniel et al., Study of Participatory Research in Health Promotion, Royal Society of Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1995.
  5. B. A. Israel, A. J. Schulz, E. A. Parker, and A. B. Becker, “Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health,” Annual Review of Public Health, vol. 19, pp. 173–202, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. I. D. Graham, J. Logan, M. B. Harrison et al., “Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?” The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 13–24, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. L. W. Green and S. L. Mercer, “Can public health researchers and agencies reconcile the push from funding bodies and the pull from communities?” The American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91, no. 12, pp. 1926–1929, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. M. W. Leung, I. H. Yen, and M. Minkler, “Community-based participatory research: a promising approach for increasing epidemiology's relevance in the 21st century,” International Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 499–506, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. E. J. Trickett, S. Beehler, C. Deutsch et al., “Advancing the science of community-level interventions,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 101, no. 8, pp. 1410–1419, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. N. Wallerstein and B. Duran, “Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity,” The American Journal of Public Health, vol. 100, supplement 1, pp. S40–S46, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. L. W. Green, “Making research relevant: if it is an evidence-based practice, where's the practice-based evidence?” Family Practice, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. i20–i24, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. L. W. Green, Guidelines and Categories for Classifying Participatory Research Projects in Health, lgreen.net, 2014, http://lgreen.net/guidelines.html.
  13. S. L. Mercer, L. W. Green, M. Cargo et al., “Appendix C: reliability-tested guidelines for assessing participatory research projects,” in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes, M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, Eds., pp. 407–433, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2008. View at Google Scholar
  14. J. van Olphen, J. Ottoson, L. Green, J. Barlow, K. Koblick, and R. Hiatt, “Evaluation of a partnership approach to translating research on breast cancer and the environment,” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 213–226, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  15. A. Kitson, K. Powell, E. Hoon, J. Newbury, A. Wilson, and J. Beilby, “Knowledge translation within a population health study: how do you do it?” Implementation Science, vol. 8, no. 1, article 54, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. M. J. Grant and A. Booth, “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies,” Health Information and Libraries Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 91–108, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. B. A. Israel, E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, and E. A. Parker, Eds., Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2005.
  18. M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, Eds., Community Based Participatory Research for Health, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2003.
  19. M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, Eds., Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2nd edition, 2008.
  20. P. Paillé, “De l'analyse qualitative en général et de l'analyse thématique en particulier,” Recherches Qualitatives, vol. 15, pp. 179–194, 1996. View at Google Scholar
  21. J. Lofland and L. H. Lofland, Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, Wadsworth, Belmont, Calif, USA, 1995.
  22. “Redesigning work systems to reduce stress: a participatory action research approach to creating change,” in Job Stress Interventions, S. J. Schurman and B. A. Israel, Eds., pp. 235–263, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  23. A. J. Schulz, B. A. Israel, A. B. Becker, and R. M. Hollis, “‘It's a 24-hour thing ... a living-for-each-other concept’: identity, networks, and community in an urban village health worker project,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 465–480, 1997. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. E. Baker, B. Israel, and S. Schurman, “Role of control and support in occupational stress: an integrated model,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 1145–1159, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. E. A. Parker, A. J. Schulz, B. A. Israel, and R. Hollis, “Detroit's East Side Village Health Worker Partnership: community-based lay health advisor intervention in an urban area,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 24–45, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. A. J. Schulz, E. A. Parker, B. A. Israel, A. B. Becker, B. J. Maciak, and R. Hollis, “Conducting a participatory community-based survey for a community health intervention on Detroit's east side.,” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 10–24, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. B. J. Maciak, R. Guzman, A. Santiago, G. Villalobos, and B. A. Israel, “Establishing LA VIDA: a community-based partnership to prevent intimate violence against Latina women,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 821–840, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. B. A. Israel, R. Lichtenstein, P. Lantz et al., “The Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center: development, implementation, and evaluation,” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1–19, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. P. M. Lantz, E. Viruell-Fuentes, B. A. Israel, D. Softley, and R. Guzman, “Can communities and academia work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based participatory research partnership in Detroit,” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 495–507, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. A. J. Schulz, B. A. Israel, E. A. Parker, M. Lockett, Y. Hill, and R. Wills, “The East Side Village Health Worker Partnership: integrating research with action to reduce health disparities,” Public Health Reports, vol. 116, no. 6, pp. 548–557, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. B. A. Israel, S. A. Farquhar, A. J. Schulz, S. A. James, and E. A. Parker, “The relationship between social support, stress, and health among women on Detroit's east side,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 342–360, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. A. J. Schulz, E. A. Parker, B. A. Israel, A. Allen, M. Decarlo, and M. Lockett, “Addressing social determinants of health through community-based participatory research: the east side village health worker partnership,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 326–341, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. B. A. Israel, “Commentary: model of community health governance: applicability to community-based participatory research partnerships,” Journal of Urban Health-Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 50–53, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  34. E. A. Parker, B. A. Israel, M. Williams et al., “Community action against asthma: examining the partnership process of a community-based participatory research project,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 558–567, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. A. J. Schulz, B. A. Israel, E. A. Parker, M. Lockett, Y. R. Hill, and R. Wills, “Engaging women in community based participatory research for health,” in Community Based Participatory Research for Health, M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, Eds., pp. 293–315, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  36. J. van Olphen, A. Schulz, B. Israel et al., “Religious involvement, social support, and health among African-American women on the east side of Detroit,” Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 549–557, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. T. C. Lewis, T. G. Robins, C. L. M. Joseph et al., “Identification of gaps in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood asthma using a community-based participatory research approach,” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 81, no. 3, pp. 472–488, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. E. A. Parker, G. T. Baldwin, B. Israel, and M. A. Salinas, “Application of health promotion theories and models for environmental health,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 491–509, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. A. J. Schulz, B. A. Israel, and P. Lantz, “Assessing and strengthening characteristics of effective groups in community-based participatory research partnerships,” in Handbook of Social Work with Groups, C. D. Garvin, L. M. Gutiérrez, and M. J. Galinsky, Eds., pp. 309–325, Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  40. A. B. Becker, B. A. Israel, and A. J. Allen III, “Strategies and techniques in effective group process in CBPR partnerships,” in Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, B. A. Israel, E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, and E. A. Parker, Eds., pp. 53–72, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  41. K. K. Edgren, E. A. Parker, B. A. Israel et al., “Community involvement in the conduct of a health education intervention and research project: community action against asthma,” Health Promotion Practice, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 263–269, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. B. A. Israel, P. M. Lantz, R. J. McGranaghan, J. R. Guzman, R. Lichtenstein, and Z. Rowe, “Documentation and evaluation of CBPR partnerships,” in Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research, B. A. Israel, E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, and E. A. Parker, Eds., pp. 255–277, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  43. B. A. Israel, E. A. Parker, Z. Rowe et al., “Community-based participatory research: lessons learned from the Centers for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research,” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 113, no. 10, pp. 1463–1471, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. E. Parker, T. G. Robins, B. A. Israel, W. Brakefield-Caldwell, K. K. Edgren, and D. J. Wilkins, “Developing and implementing guidelines for dissemination: the experience of the community action against asthma project,” in Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, B. Israel, E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, and E. A. Parker, Eds., pp. 285–306, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  45. B. A. Israel, J. Krieger, D. Vlahov et al., “Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: lessons learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle Urban Research Centers,” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 1022–1040, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. B. A. Israel, A. J. Schulz, L. Estrada-Martinez et al., “Engaging urban residents in assessing neighborhood environments and their implications for health,” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 523–539, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  47. E. A. Parker, B. A. Israel, T. G. Robins et al., “Evaluation of Community Action Against Asthma: a community health worker intervention to improve children's asthma-related health by reducing household environmental triggers for asthma,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 376–395, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  48. K. M. Roe, M. Minkler, and F. F. Saunders, “Combining research, advocacy, and education: the methods of the Grandparent Caregiver Study,” Health Education Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 458–475, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  49. K. M. Roe, M. Minkler, F. Saunders, and G. E. Thomson, “Health of grandmothers raising children of the crack cocaine epidemic,” Medical Care, vol. 34, no. 11, pp. 1072–1084, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  50. M. Minkler, “Grandparents as parents: a survival guide for raising a second family,” Gerontologist, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 242–245, 1999. View at Google Scholar
  51. M. Minkler, “Using participatory action research to build healthy communities,” Public Health Reports, vol. 115, no. 2-3, pp. 191–197, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. M. Minkler, M. Thompson, J. Bell, and K. Rose, “Contributions of community involvement to organizational-level empowerment: the federal healthy start experience,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 783–807, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. M. Minkler, P. Fadem, M. Perry, K. Blum, L. Moore, and J. Rogers, “Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: a case study from the disability community,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 14–29, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. P. Fadem, M. Minkler, M. Perry et al., “Ethical challenges in community based participatory research: a case study from the San Francisco Bay Area disability community,” in Community Based Participatory Research for Health, M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, Eds., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  55. P. Fadem, M. Minkler, M. Perry et al., “Attitudes of people with disabilities toward physician-assisted suicide legislation: broadening the dialogue,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 977–1001, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  56. M. Minkler and T. Hancock, “Community-driven asset identification and issue selection,” in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, Eds., pp. 135–154, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  57. M. Themba and M. Minkler, “Influencing policy through community-based participatory research,” in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, Eds., pp. 349–369, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  58. M. Minkler, “Ethical challenges for the ‘outside’ researcher in community-based participatory research,” Health Education and Behavior, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 684–697, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. M. Minkler, “Community-based research partnerships: challenges and opportunities,” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 82, supplement 2, no. 2, pp. ii3–ii12, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  60. M. Minkler, V. B. Vásquez, M. Tajik, and D. Petersen, “Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: the role of community and partnership capacity,” Health Education & Behavior, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 119–137, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. M. Minkler, V. B. Vásquez, J. R. Warner, H. Steussey, and S. Facente, “Sowing the seeds for sustainable change: a community-based participatory research partnership for health promotion in Indiana, USA and its aftermath,” Health Promotion International, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 293–300, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  62. M. Minkler, V. B. Vásquez, and P. Shepard, “Promoting environmental health policy through community based participatory research: a case study from Harlem, New York,” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 101–110, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. N. Wallerstein, “Power between evaluator and community: research relationships within New Mexico's healthier communities,” Social Science and Medicine, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 39–53, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. N. Wallerstein, “Community-based prevention: programs that work,” Health Education & Behavior, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 517–519, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  65. V. Chavez, B. Duran, Q. E. Baker, M. M. Avila, and N. Wallerstein, “The dance of race and privilege in community-based participatory research,” in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, M. Minkler and N. Wallerstein, Eds., pp. 81–97, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  66. K. C. English, N. Wallerstein, M. Chino et al., “Intermediate outcomes of a tribal community public health infrastructure assessment,” Ethnicity & Disease, vol. 14, no. 3, supplement 1, pp. S61–S69, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  67. K. Wells, J. Miranda, M. L. Bruce, M. Alegria, and N. Wallerstein, “Bridging community intervention and mental health services research,” The American Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 161, no. 6, pp. 955–963, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  68. N. Wallerstein, B. Duran, M. Minkler, and K. Foley, “Developing and maintaining partnerships with communities,” in Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, B. Israel, E. Eng, A. J. Schulz, and E. A. Parker, Eds., pp. 31–51, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Calif, USA, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  69. L. Romero, N. Wallerstein, J. Lucero, H. G. Fredine, J. Keefe, and J. O'Connell, “Woman to woman: coming together for positive change—using empowerment and popular education to prevent HIV in women,” AIDS Education and Prevention, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 390–405, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  70. N. Wallerstein, “Commentary: challenges for the field in overcoming disparities through a CBPR approach,” Ethnicity & Disease, vol. 16, supplement 1, no. 1, pp. S146–S148, 2006. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  71. N. B. Wallerstein and B. Duran, “Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities,” Health Promotion Practice, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 312–323, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  72. A. C. Macaulay, T. Delormier, A. M. McComber et al., “Participatory research with Native community of Kahnawake creates innovative Code of Research Ethics,” Canadian Journal of Public Health, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 105–108, 1998. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  73. A. C. Macaulay, L. E. Commanda, W. L. Freeman et al., “Participatory research maximises community and lay involvement,” British Medical Journal, vol. 319, no. 7212, pp. 774–778, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. The Examining Community-Institutional Partnerships for Prevention Research Group, Developing and Sustaining Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships: A Skill-Building Curriculum, 2006, http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/cbpr/intro/intro.php#i.
  75. J. Jagosh, A. C. Macaulay, P. Pluye et al., “Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice,” Milbank Quarterly, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 311–346, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  76. J. M. Westfall, K. Nearing, M. Felzien et al., “Researching together: a CTSA partnership of academicians and communities for translation,” Clinical and Translational Science, vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 356–362, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. L. Jones and K. Wells, “Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 297, no. 4, pp. 407–410, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. M. L. Allen, K. A. Culhane-Pera, S. Pergament, and K. T. Call, “A capacity building program to promote CBPR partnerships between academic researchers and community members,” Clinical and Translational Science, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 428–433, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  79. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Basics of Developing Authentic Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships: Principles and Practices, 2012, http://www.cdc.gov/prc/training/practitoners/basics-of-developing-authentic-community.htm.
  80. B. A. Israel, C. M. Coombe, R. McGranaghan et al., “Community-based participatory research: a partnership approach for public health,” [CD-ROM], 2009.
  81. D. Parry, J. Salsberg, and A. C. Macaulay, A Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research, 2009, http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44954.html.
  82. C. Kennedy, A. Vogel, C. Goldberg-Freeman, N. Kass, and M. Farfel, “Faculty perspectives on community-based research: ‘I see this still as a journey’,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 3–16, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. M. Mason, B. Rucker, M. Reed et al., “‘I know what CBPR is, now what do I do?’ Community perspectives on CBPR capacity building,” Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 235–241, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. N. Norman, S. Cowart, M. Felzien et al., “Testing to prevent colon cancer: how rural community members took on a community-based intervention,” Annals of Family Medicine, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 568–570, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  85. S. D. Seifer, “Building and sustaining community-institutional partnerships for prevention research: findings from a national collaborative,” Journal of Urban Health, vol. 83, no. 6, pp. 989–1003, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus