We are unable to display your institutional affiliation without JavaScript turned on.
Browse Book and Journal Content on Project MUSE
OR

Find using OpenURL

Buy This Issue

Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory Research
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

What Is the Purpose of this Study?

  • •    To determine the relationship, if any, between the collaborative process of conducting the community research collaboration projects and the reported outcomes.

What Is the Problem?

  • •    Although the application of community-based participatory research (CBPR) is advancing, accomplishing collaborative research has been challenging. Until recently, there has been relatively little research on the process or outcomes of CBPR. A better understanding of the process and outcomes of CBPR, and their possible relationship, could lead to improvements in the field.

What Are the Findings?

  • •    Although the projects varied in the measures of the partnership process, the three teams that had the highest outcome scores also had the highest scores for the partnership process.

  • •    In the area of process, teams had the most difficulty conducting the data analysis collaboratively, sharing power, and managing the impact of turnover.

  • •    In the area of outcomes, teams were most effective at improving the quality of research methodology, providing benefits to the participating community agency, and answering questions important to the communities involved.

Who Should Care Most?

  • •    CBPR team members.

  • •    Community-based organizations that participate in or sponsor CBPR projects.

  • •    Funders of CBPR.

Recommendations for Action

  • •    The finding that teams that collaborate more fully also produced more robust research outcomes suggests that interventions aimed at enhancing partnerships could lead to increased outcomes.

  • •    Concrete recommendations to funders and research teams can be made.

  • •    Signed agreements should be expected among all parties that incorporate elements such as data ownership, turnover, and conflict resolution plans.

  • •    Agreements should address whether the community organization is responsible for ensuring a competent replacement, if the community's lead investigator leaves the project, so that the project stays with the community organization.

  • •    By encouraging broader involvement of the lay community, and members of the board and staff, funders can help to ensure that projects are truly CBPR as evidenced by a deep sense of ownership of the project by the broader community and community organization.

Marj Plumb, Natalie Collins, Janna N. Cordeiro and Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch  

Plumb M, Collins N, Cordeiro J, Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory Research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action. 2008;2:87–97. The Community Policy Brief is intended to inform community based organizations, public health policy makers, and other individuals whose primary interest is not research, but who would be interested in the application and translation of research findings for practical purposes.

Copyright © 2008 The Johns Hopkins University Press
Project MUSE® - View Citation
Marj Plumb. and Natalie Collins. and Janna N. Cordeiro. and Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch. "Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory Research." Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 2.2 (2008): 85-86. Project MUSE. Web. 24 Jan. 2013. <http://muse.jhu.edu/>.
Plumb, M. & Collins, N. & Cordeiro, J. N. & Kavanaugh-Lynch, M.(2008). Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory Research. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 2(2), 85-86. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved January 24, 2013, from Project MUSE database.
Marj Plumb and Natalie Collins and Janna N. Cordeiro and Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch et. al. "Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory Research." Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 2, no. 2 (2008): 85-86. http://muse.jhu.edu/ (accessed January 24, 2013).
TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing Process and Outcomes: Evaluating Community-Based Participatory Research
A1 - Marj Plumb
A1 - Natalie Collins
A1 - Janna N. Cordeiro
A1 - Mhel Kavanaugh-Lynch
JF - Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action
VL - 2
IS - 2
SP - 85
EP - 86
PY - 2008
PB - The Johns Hopkins University Press
SN - 1557-055X
UR - http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/progress_in_community_health_partnerships_research_education_and_action/v002/2.2.plumb.html
N1 - Volume 2, Issue 2, Summer 2008
ER -

...



You must be logged in through an institution that subscribes to this journal or book to access the full text.

Shibboleth

Shibboleth authentication is only available to registered institutions.

Project MUSE

For subscribing associations only.