Search

Understanding what contributes to success of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships is essential to ensuring their effectiveness in addressing health disparities and health inequities. Synergy, the concept of accomplishing more together than separately, is central to partnership effectiveness. However, synergy specific to long-standing, equity-focused CBPR partnerships has not been closely examined. To address this, we defined and developed measures of partnership synergy as one dimension of a participatory mixed methods study, Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS), to develop a validated instrument to measure success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Framed by a conceptual model and scoping literature review, we conducted in-depth interviews with a national panel of academic and community experts in CBPR and equity to develop partnership synergy measures. Items were refined through an iterative process, including a three-stage Delphi process, comparison with existing measures, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing. Seven questionnaire items were developed to measure synergy arising from equitable partnerships bringing together diverse partners across power differences to promote equity. Defining and measuring synergy in the context of long-standing partnership success is central to understanding the role of synergy in collaborative approaches to research and action and can strengthen CBPR partnerships to promote healthy communities and advance health equity.

Community-based participatory research has a long-term commitment to principles of equity and justice with decades of research showcasing the added value of power-sharing and participatory involvement of community members for achieving health, community capacity, policy, and social justice outcomes. Missing, however, has been a clear articulation of how power operates within partnership practices and the impact of these practices on outcomes. The National Institutes of Health-funded Research for Improved Health study (2009-2013), having surveyed 200 partnerships, then conducted seven in-depth case studies to better understand which partnership practices can best build from community histories of organizing to address inequities. The diverse case studies represented multiple ethnic-racial and other marginalized populations, health issues, and urban and rural areas and regions. Cross-cutting analyses of the qualitative results focus on how oppressive and emancipatory forms of power operate within partnerships in response to oppressive conditions or emancipatory histories of advocacy within communities. The analysis of power was conducted within each of the four domains of the community-based participatory research conceptual model, starting from how contexts shape partnering processes to impact short-term intervention and research outputs, and contribute to outcomes. Similarities and differences in how partnerships leveraged and addressed their unique contexts and histories are presented, with both structural and relational practices that intentionally addressed power relations. These results demonstrate how community members draw from their resilience and strengths to combat histories of injustice and oppression, using partnership principles and practices toward multilevel outcomes that honor community knowledge and leadership, and seek shared power, policy, and community transformation changes, thereby advancing health equity.

As part of the Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success study, we investigated the relationship between benefits and costs of participation in long-standing community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships using social exchange theory as a theoretical framework. Three major findings were identified: (a) the concept of benefits and costs operating as a ratio, where individual benefits must outweigh costs for participation, applies to early stages of CBPR partnership formation; (b) as CBPR partnerships develop, the benefits and costs of participation include each other's needs and the needs of the group as a whole; and (c) there is a shift in the relationship of benefits and costs over time in long-standing CBPR partnerships, in which partners no longer think in terms of costs but rather investments that contribute to mutual benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While a growing body of research examines individual factors affecting the prevalence and management of hypertension among Latinos, less is known about how socioecological factors operate to determine health and affect implementation of interventions in rural communities. Method: We conducted eight focus groups to assess perceived risks and protective factors associated with managing hypertension among Latino adults and their family members living in two rural/frontier counties in the U.S.–Mexico border region. This analysis is part of a larger study, Corazon por la Vida (Heart for Life), which involved multiple data collection strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of a primary care and a promotora de salud intervention to manage hypertension. Results: Of the 49 focus group participants, 70% were female and 30% were male, 39% were Spanish-only speakers, and 84% had hypertension. Participants' ages ranged between 18 and 75 years, and 63% reported annual incomes below $30,000. Drawing from a social–ecological framework to analyze focus group data, four major themes and subthemes emerged as factors facilitating or inhibiting disease management: (1) individual (emotional burdens, coping mechanisms), (2) social relationships (family as a source of support, family as a source of stress), (3) health system (trust/mistrust, patient–provider communication), and (4) environment (lack of access to safe exercise environment, lack of affordable food). Conclusion: Our findings are relevant to public health practitioners, researchers, and policymakers seeking to shift from individual level or single interventions aimed at improving treatment-modality adherence to multilevel or multiple interventions for rural Latino communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of community based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved over the past 20 years with the recognition that health equity is best achieved when academic researchers form collaborative partnerships with communities. This article theorizes the possibility that core principles of CBPR cannot be realistically applied unless unequal power relations are identified and addressed. It provides theoretical and empirical perspectives for understanding power, privilege, researcher identity and academic research team composition, and their effects on partnering processes and health disparity outcomes. The team’s processes of conducting seven case studies of diverse partnerships in a national cross-site CBPR study are analyzed; the multi-disciplinary research team’s self-reflections on identity and positionality are analyzed, privileging its combined racial, ethnic, and gendered life experiences, and integrating feminist and post-colonial theory into these reflections. Findings from the inquiry are shared, and incorporating academic researcher team identity is recommended as a core component of equalizing power distribution within CBPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]