Product Details

Author Information

Corresponding Author
Michele Allen
University of Minnesota
717 Delaware St. SE
Suite 166
Minneapolis, MN 55414
United States
p: 612-625-4760
miallen@umn.edu

Authors (listed in order of authorship):
Kathleen Culhane-Pera
West Side Community Health Services

Kathleen Thiede Call
University of Minnesota

Shannon Pergament
West Side Community Health Services

Product Description and Application Narrative Submitted by Corresponding Author

What general topics does your product address?

Public Health

What specific topics does your product address?

Community development, Community engagement, Faculty development, Partnership building , Program evaluation, Community-based participatory research

Does your product focus on a specific population(s)?

Immigrant, Latino/Hispanic, Refugee, Urban

What methodological approaches were used in the development of your product, or are discussed in your product?

Community-academic partnership, Community-based participatory research , Qualitative research, Quantitative research

What resource type(s) best describe(s) your product?

Curriculum, Faculty development materials, Lecture/presentation, Manual/how to guide

Application Narrative

1. Please provide a 1600 character abstract describing your product, its intended use and the audiences for which it would be appropriate.*

Product: Community and academic collaborators developed two separate but parallel comprehensive curricula designed to prepare community members and academic faculty to collaborate on community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects. Background: Few curricula exist that offer parallel trainings on CBPR for community members who are novice researchers, and academics who have little background on CBPR. Methods of product development: We interviewed 13 faculty members regarding their perceived priorities for building faculty and community member proficiency in collaborative research. Similarly, we interviewed six community leaders regarding academic and community skills they would prioritize for inclusion in the curricula. Finally, we drew from existing programs to design two curricula. Product Description: The CBPR curriculum for the community scholars includes six sessions (3 hours each). Topics include: 1) Introduction to CBPR, 2) Overview of research, 3) Quantitative/qualitative design and analysis, 4) Research ethics from community perspective, 5) Key challenges to CBPR partnerships, 6) Partnering skills to address key challenges (empowerment approach) including communication strategies and shared decision making. The faculty curriculum consists of 2 sessions (3-6 hours each). Topics include, 1) Introduction to CBPR, 2) Key challenges to CBPR partnerships, 3) Partnering skills to address key challenges), 4) Ethics in CBPR, 5) IRB applications, 6) Financials in CBPR. It is recommended that time be allocated to emphasize key challenges and partnership skills. Training manuals and exercises are included.

2. What are the goals of the product?

The goal of this product is to increase capacity for CBPR research by supporting the successful development of partnerships between community members and academic researchers. In our approach to CBPR, researchers and community members co-create partnerships where each partner’s expertise is recognized and valued with the goal of producing knowledge that may be applied to improving community health.1-4 The curriculum was designed particularly to address the needs of community members without a research background and faculty with interest in but little experience with CBPR. The trainings address the knowledge, collaboration skills, and attitudes on both sides of the community/academic partnership that will most likely lead to the development of successful CBPR partnerships, and emphasize the need for partners to: set clear expectations, acknowledge the value of their respective knowledge systems, develop norms for sharing power and negotiating decisions, work toward open and honest communication, and expect and learn from conflicts that are an inherent element of most partnerships. The product was designed for separate trainings of community and faculty scholars, with the goal of creating peer support within each group as they prepare for their partnership. The curricula were developed with and utilized by a multi-ethnic group of community members representing immigrant and refugee communities and academic faculty as part of a larger project, Partners in Research. In this larger project, we first trained community members and academic faculty, then matched them based on community member research interest, and supported the development of the nascent research partnerships.

3. Who are the intended audiences or expected users of the product?

The intended audiences are community members without significant research background and faculty members/researchers with limited training in CBPR. The expected users are individuals who wish to encourage CBPR collaborations and foster a successful start for community and faculty partnerships.

4. Please provide any special instructions for successful use of the product, if necessary. If your product has been previously published, please provide the appropriate citation below.

These trainings should be led by an experienced CBPR researcher and community partners who together can contribute research expertise and first-hand knowledge and experiences with CBPR projects. The curriculum includes a trainers manual, slides for each session, two experiential exercises tailored for the community and faculty curricula, “homework” assignments, and a list of suggested readings. Throughout the curricula, there are opportunities for instructors to provide concrete examples of their own CBPR experiences and draw on local experiences. This is encouraged as participants benefit from tangible case studies and illustrations.

5. Please describe how your product or the project that resulted in the product builds on a relevant field, discipline or prior work. You may cite the literature and provide a bibliography in the next question if appropriate.

Translational research (the uptake of evidence-based health interventions) may improve health outcomes and reduce disparities.5 It has been recognized that CBPR may address challenges to the translational research process that include low external validity, lack of community trust in research, and inadequate sustainability of programming in community settings.6 CBPR overcomes these challenges by producing more valid and reliable information that is more applicable to creating sustainable programs, interventions, or solutions.7-9 Despite the potential contribution of CBPR, community engaged research represents only a fraction of all health research.10 Few models exist for how to promote CBPR. These curricula were developed as part of Partners in Research: Improving the Health and Wellness of Immigrants and Refugees in St Paul, MN, a National Institute of Health funded study to evaluate a model to promote effective CBPR partnerships between academic health center faculty and community members. The literature suggests potential facilitators to CBPR participation that may be a focus of training, including personal attributes such as a capacity for introspection and reflection,11, 12 the ability to collaborate,13 and character traits that engender productive responses to challenges.14 Important skills that may positively influence group dynamics include techniques to develop open communication, establish norms for decision making, address conflict, and promote shared power and influence.15-17 A number of curricula have been developed to address these facilitators,18, 19 but none focus on conveying skills that build partnerships from the ground up for diverse community members. This training emphasizes the value of separate empowerment of community and faculty scholars early in their partnerships.

6. Please provide a bibliography for work cited above or in other parts of this application. Provide full references, in the order sited in the text (i.e. according to number order). .

1. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173-202.
2. Whyte WF, Greenwood, D.J., & Lazes, P. Participatory action research: Through practice to science in social research. In: Whyte W, ed. Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
3. Macaulay AC, Commanda LE, Freeman WL, et al. Participatory research maximizes community and lay involvement. North American Primary Care Research Group. BMJ. Sep 18 1999;319(7212):774-778.
4. Minkler M, Wallerstein, N. Introduction to Community Based Participatory Research. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein, N., ed. Community Based Participatory Research for Health. First ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2003:1-27.
5. The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium’s Community Engagement Key Function Committee and the CTSA Community Engagement Workshop Planning Committee. Researchers and Their Communities: The Challenge of Meaningful Community Engagement National Institutes of Health;2008.
6. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American journal of public health. Apr 1;100 Suppl 1:S40-46.
7. Leung MW, Yen IH, Minkler M. Community based participatory research: a promising approach for increasing epidemiology's relevance in the 21st century. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2004;33(3):499-506.
8. Wali A. Collaborative Research: A Practical Introduction to Participatory Action Research for Communities and Scholars. Field Museum Center for Cultural Understanding and Change. Chicago IL: The Field Museum; 2006.
9. Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S. Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared? Circulation. May 19 2009;119(19):2633-2642.
10. Hood NE, Brewer T, Jackson R, Wewers ME. Survey of community engagement in NIH-funded research. Clin Transl Sci. Feb 2010;3(1):19-22.
11. Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Community-based participatory research: policy recommendations for promoting a partnership approach in health research. Educ Health (Abingdon). 2001;14(2):182-197.
12. Minkler M. Ethical challenges for the "outside" researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Educ Behav. Dec 2004;31(6):684-697.
13. Kennedy C, Vogel A, Goldberg-Freeman C, Kass N, Farfel M. Faculty Perspectives on Community-Based Research: "I See This Still as a Journey". Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. Jun 2009;4(2):3-16.
14. Schaffer MA. A virtue ethics guide to best practices for community-based participatory research. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2009 3(1):83-90.
15. Schulz AJ, Israel BA, Lantz P. Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community-based participatory research partnerships. Evaluation and Program Planning. Aug 2003;26(3):249-262.
16. Israel BA, Lichtenstein R, Lantz P, et al. The Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center: development, implementation, and evaluation. J Public Health Manag Pract. Sep 2001;7(5):1-19.
17. Becker AB, Israel, B., Allen, A. Strategies and Techniques for Effective Group Process in CBPR Partnerships. In: Israel BA, Eng, E., Schulz, A., and Parker, E., ed. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. First ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons; 2005:52-72.
18. The Examining Community-Institutional Partnerships for Prevention Research Group. Developing and Sustaining Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships: A Skill-Building Curriculum. 2006; http://www.ccph.info/. Accessed March 8, 2010.
19. Sydlo S, Schensul J, Owens D, et al. Participatory Action Research Curriculum for Empowering Youth. Hartford: National Teen Action Research Center of the Institute for Community Research; 2000.
20. Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. JAMA. Jan 24 2007;297(4):407-410.
21. Israel B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker AB, Allen A, Guzman JR. Critical issues in developing and following CBPR principles. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, eds. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes. Second ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008:47-66.
22. Wallerstein N, Oetzel J, Duran B, Tafoya G, Belone L, Rae R. What predicts outcomes in CBPR? In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N, eds. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes. Second ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008:371-388.
23. Seifer SD, Calleson DC. Health professional faculty perspectives on community-based research: implications for policy and practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care. Nov 2004;18(4):416-427.
24. Wallerstein N, Duran, B., Minkler, M., and Foley, K. Developing and Maintaining Partnerships with Communities. In: Israel BA, Eng, E., Schulz, A., and Parker, E., ed. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. First ed. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons; 2005:31-51.
25. Allen ML, Culhane-Pera KA, Pergament SL, Call KT. Facilitating Research Faculty Participation in CBPR: Development of a Model Based on Key Informant Interviews. Clin Transl Sci. 2010;3(5):233-238.

7. Please describe the project or body of work from which the submitted product developed. Describe the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise contributed to the project. Pay particular attention to demonstrating the quality or rigor of the work:

• For research-related work, describe (if relevant) study aims, design, sample, measurement instruments, and analysis and interpretation. Discuss how you verified the accuracy of your data.
• For education-related work, describe (if relevant) any needs assessment conducted, learning objectives, educational strategies incorporated, and evaluation of learning.
• For other types of work, discuss how the project was developed and reasons for the methodological choices made.

These curricula were developed as part of a larger project: Partners in Research. Our team was composed of 2 researchers (Schools of Medicine and Public Health), and 2 community collaborators (a community clinic physician and a community organizer). For Partners in Research we identified four components of a model based on our review of the literature about CBPR partnership development and our experiences: 1) activated community members who represent their communities in research; 2) prepared researchers who adhere to principles of CBPR; 3) trusted community-based institutions that facilitate research partnership process; and 4) a flexible and dynamic infrastructure that supports the educational, financial, and logistical needs of CBPR endeavors.20-24 We recruited 10 community members from communities served by the community clinic partner--- Hmong, Latino, and Somali. We chose these community scholars based on their interest in CBPR (research experience was not required), history of leadership, and ability to describe a health topic of importance to their community. We recruited academic faculty to participate with the goal of developing prepared researchers. The parallel community and faculty curricula described here are based on a review of the literature, previously developed curricula, interviews with community leaders, key informant university faculty,25 and our own experiences with CBPR. Additional input was contributed by community scholars as part of the training sessions. Community scholars received 18 hours of training (6 sessions) and faculty received 6 hours of training (2 sessions.) Learning objectives for community: Knowledge: 1) Describe advantages of CBPR, 2) Describe basic research processes (research question, qualitative and quantitative design and analyses), 3) Describe strategies for effective CBPR partnerships. Skills: 1) Perform and analyze individual interviews, 2) Read and interpret quantitative data tables, 3) Write letter of intent for grant, 4) Advocate for community, 5) Implement communication and negotiation skills to overcome potential barriers to developing strong partnerships. Attitudes: 1) Be excited about the potential of CBPR to improve health of communities, 2) Be willing to hold self and partners accountable for success of partnerships. Ten community scholars participated in a collaborative evaluation and iterative development of the sessions. Learning objectives for faculty: Knowledge: 1) Describe the need for and advantages of CBPR, 2) Describe common challenges in CBPR partnerships, 3) Describe financial/budgetary issues unique to CBPR collaborations, 4) Describe specific ethical and IRB issues involved in developing and implementing CBPR projects. Skills: 1) Implement communication and negotiation skills to overcome potential barriers to developing strong partnerships, 2) Tailor IRB application to CBPR approach and to address community protection. Attitudes: 1) Be excited about the potential of CBPR to improve community health, 2) Be comfortable sharing power and working in a non-hierarchical manner. Seventeen university personnel attended the 2-day trainings, including faculty, students, and staff. The majority of participants had no or a little experience in CBPR. The ten community scholars were matched with seven prepared researchers to form seven partnerships. Community scholars were diverse in terms of ethnicity, education level, and gender while faculty members were mostly tenured US-born European-Americans. These partnerships were supported for two years.

8. Please describe the process of developing the product, including the ways that community and academic/institutional expertise were integrated in the development of this product.

Prior to designing the CBPR training curricula for faculty and community members, we conducted in-depth interviews with key informant faculty. A list of faculty members using or interested in using CBPR was generated in collaboration with university leaders working to promote CBPR. We intentionally sought a diverse set of faculty in terms of academic rank, gender, membership across academic health center schools, and experience using CBPR. In addition, we interviewed leaders from six community agencies who represented the Hmong, Latino, and Somali communities in the geographical area of focus for the project. Data from faculty and community leader key informant interviews, previously developed curricula, and our personal experiences with CBPR partnerships were integrated to develop the current curricula.

9. Please discuss the significance and impact of your product. In your response, discuss ways your product has added to existing knowledge and benefited the community; ways others may have utilized your product; and any relevant evaluation data about impact, if available. If the impact of the product is not yet known, discuss its potential significance.

The trainings were delivered and evaluated as part of the larger Partners in Research project. The evaluation of the curricula included immediate post-session feedback from faculty and community training sessions, and assessment of how well the training contributed to successful partnership development through the two year Partners in Research project. The faculty post-session evaluation was quantitative. The average faculty satisfaction score across all components of the curriculum was 5.83 on a scale of 1 – 7, (1 = not at all useful to 7 = extremely useful). The community scholar post-session evaluation was qualitative, and was designed to assess the degree to which the training was building on participants’ existing skills and addressing their priorities. They were asked four questions at the end of each session: 1) What did you learn today?, 2) What do you want to learn more about?, 3) What went well?, and 4) What didn’t go well? Participants were able to describe key components of all sessions. Recommendations and requests for additional information for specific sessions included: how to ask good questions; how to respond to negative reactions from the community to research findings; more real life examples; more on conflict resolution. Participants felt that group discussions, concrete activities, and “real-life” examples (such as the scenario) were useful. Their main criticism was lack of time to address all topics.

Matched partners were asked at project end how well the training prepared them for their collaboration. A mixed-methods analysis of responses indicated that both faculty and community scholars utilized skills they developed through the trainings. Faculty ranked the trainings as good and community scholars as very good (on a 5 point scale from poor to excellent) in preparing them for their partnerships. Faculty reported utilizing the communication training and the general introduction to CBPR. Community scholars identified preparation for partnering with faculty and learning about research processes as helpful. Both faculty and community scholars reported egalitarian processes in terms of decision making, communicating, and negotiating. A number of community scholars wanted more training on writing grants, research methods such as focus group facilitation, and completing IRB applications. Qualitative results suggested that the trainings contributed to positive communication by encouraging partners to use direct communication and to be more explicit about their priorities and decision-making processes. Both community and academic partners reported discussing decision-making options and universally agreed upon a consensus style. In other aspects of partnership quality, all partners reported that they could speak directly with their partner and felt that their opinions were considered and respected.

Subsequently, the curricula or portions of the trainings have been used in graduate level classes for public health students on CBPR and community engaged scholarship including: a one week intensive course in the School of Public Health’s Summer Institute (2010) and one section of a core research methods requirement for masters of public health students (Fall 2010); research training for undergraduates (two sessions); continuing education for academic faculty (two sessions), community trainings (two trainings with Latino community members and with a mixed Hmong, Somali, and Latino CBPR group); and in partnership preparation for community/university seed grant recipients (one training).

10. Please describe why you chose the presentation format you did.

The presentation format of didactic and experiential learning combined with conversation was designed to 1) build knowledge, skills, and attitudes contributing to the development of successful CBPR partnerships, 2) encourage community scholars' reflection on their strengths and contribution to research, and 3) encourage research faculty’s' reflection on key attitudes contributing to successful partnering. The product includes the set of power point slides, recommended readings, and interactive exercises used in the community and faculty scholar curriculum. Although providing a concrete and detailed framework for teaching, it is not scripted. Therefore instructors can invoke their own language and style while conveying the course content. And most importantly, the product encourages faculty and community instructors to draw heavily on their own examples of and experiences with CBPR, or the experiences of other partnerships in the local environment.

11. Please reflect on the strengths and limitations of your product. In what ways did community and academic/institutional collaborators provide feedback and how was such feedback used? Include relevant evaluation data about strengths and limitations if available.

Strengths of the Partners in Research materials are: 1) the curricula were developed collaboratively between community and academic partners; 2) the curricula included the perspectives of multiple community and faculty key informants; and 3) the curricular materials are versatile and have been utilized in a variety of settings. Limitations are: 1) the products have been formally evaluated over an extended period of time with only a small number of partnerships; and 2) there was no control group that only received the training and did not receive ongoing support and facilitation of partnership development as was provided by the PIR team over the 1.5 year period following the formal training.

12. Please describe ways that the project resulting in the product involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. If different, describe ways that the product itself involved collaboration that embodied principles of mutual respect, shared work and shared credit. Have all collaborators on the product been notified of and approved submission of the product to CES4Health.info? If not, why not? Please indicate whether the project resulting in the product was approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and/or community-based review mechanism, if applicable, and provide the name(s) of the IRB/mechanism.

Both the Partners in Research project and the product being submitted to CES4health were created in adherence to core CBPR principles. Community and academic scholars have been involved in the development of all publications and in all dissemination activities. The Partners in Research project, which included a data collection and evaluation component, was approved by the University of Minnesota IRB. Although a formal community-based review board was not available to appraise the products, the curriculum was created and implemented with continuous oversight by the community collaborators.