Darius Tandon, PhD Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

1. A Review of Published Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) & Recommendations for Future Scholarly Work Darius Tandon, PhD Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Deputy Editor, Progress in Community Health Partnerships Presentation at Academy Health Annual Meeting June 2-5, 2007, Orlando, Florida

2. Today’s Presentation • Definition, Characteristics, Rationale for CBPR • Review of Published CBPR • Priority Areas for Future CBPR Publications

3. What is Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR)? “A collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings”. --W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2001)

4. What CBPR is NOT • ”Community-placed” research • Sporadic or symbolic inclusion of communities • Basic research

5. Key Characteristics of CBPR • Active collaboration and participation from all partners at every stage of research • Co-learning—i.e., community residents and researchers both contribute and learn from one another • Projects are community-driven • Results are disseminated in useful ways • Research and intervention strategies are culturally appropriate • Defines community as a unit of identity -O’Fallon & Dearry (2002)

6. Why CBPR? Growing recognition that “traditional research”: • Has failed to solve complex health problems • Is not well suited for translational research • Does not adequately address locally identified needs

7. A Vision for Progress in Community Health Partnerships (Tandon et al., 2007) • Review of published CBPR in eight areas: • Original research • Work-in-progress/lessons learned • Theory and methods • Policy and practice • Education and training • Practical tools • Community perspective • Systematic reviews • Recommendations for future CBPR publications

8. Methods: Recommendations for Future CBPR Publications • Group judgment technique (i.e., Delphi Process) to elicit perspectives of leaders in the field of CBPR • Stage 1: Idea Generation • 17 Editors & Editorial Fellows of PCHP provided brief phrases on issues, problems, topics on which eight types of PCHP articles should focus • Stage 2: Idea Prioritization • Specific recommendations emerging from Stage 1 given to PCHP External Editorial Board to prioritize which thematic concepts they felt were most important for CBPR articles submitted to PCHP to address.

9. Present Day Intervention & non-intervention studies Focused on an array of health issues Many racial/ethnic groups with whom studies have been conducted Future Work Translation of CBPR into policy How do partnership characteristics and processes influence health outcomes? Original Research

10. Present Day Formative research to help design and modify interventions Identify health problems on which a partnership should focus Challenges & obstacles related to study design and implementation Future Work Building community partnerships Challenges in conducting CBPR Work in Progress/Lessons Learned

11. Present Day Theoretical influences on CBPR (e.g., feminist theory, critical social theory, action research) Theoretical frameworks for sustaining interventions; dealing with race, class, gender Use of “non-traditional” research methods (e.g., photovoice, Delphi process) Future Work Research methods Use of theoretical and conceptual frameworks to guide CBPR projects Research design issues Theory and Methods

12. Present Day Many examples of health domains in which CBPR has influenced policy (e.g., environmental health, smoking, violence prevention, occupational healthcare) Future Work Engaging community members in policy and practice How to implement policy/practice based on CBPR findings? Policy and Practice

13. Present Day IOM recommendation that CBPR be taught to all public health students Several master’s and doctoral level courses www.cbprcurriculum.info Future Work CBPR curriculum and graduate medical education reform Training new investigators Training community partners Education and Training

14. Present Day Little published work documenting community partners’ perspectives Most published work that include community co-authors do not distinguish academic and community partners’ perspectives Some exceptions: Kelly et al. (2004) Chene et al. (2006) Future Work Community perspectives on research usefulness Problems communities would like to see addressed by partnerships Community perspectives on roles in CBPR projects Community Perspective

15. Present Day Two CBPR textbooks offer several practical tools (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003; Isreal et al., 2005) Instruments to determine whether project adheres to partnership principles Tools to help develop and sustain partnerships Future Work Resources/tools to develop community partners’ skills Resources re: evaluation strategies Practical Tools

16. Present Day AHRQ Evidence Report on CBPR (Viswanathan et al., 2004): Quality of methodology Community involvement Desired health outcomes Future Work Reviews re: CBPR methods Reviews re: CBPR effectiveness Systematic Reviews

17. Closing Thoughts • Need for well-written peer-reviewed journal articles that describe various aspects of CBPR • Such articles can facilitate the pace and process of CBPR adoption among researchers and communities

18. For More Information… Progress in Community Health Partnerships http://pchp.press.jhu.edu Darius Tandon standon@jhmi.edu

19. Exercise • For your assigned topic, review the recommendations found in Table 2 • In your opinion… • Which recommendation is the highest priority? • Is there a recommendation that should be on the list but is not? • Report back to larger group