Literature DB >> 19129433

Developing methods to compare low-education community-based and university-based survey teams.

Doug Brugge1, Patricia Kapunan, Lauren Babcock-Dunning, Robyn Greenfield Matloff, Daniel Cagua-Koo, Ekwutosi Okoroh, Fatima L Salas, Laura Bradeen, Mark Woodin.   

Abstract

We compared the quality of low-education community-based survey teams to college educated graduate students. Our approach was to develop methods, conduct a pilot survey, and report lessons. Community and university teams conducted surveys from non-overlapping random samples of addresses at a public housing development in Boston, Massachusetts. The two types of teams make a similar number of attempts (122 and 124, respectively), and there was no statistically significant difference between the teams in terms of response rate or amount of missing data. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in refusal rate or in responses to questions in the survey. There was, however, evidence that the community teams used data tracking forms improperly. This study suggests that it is possible to study the relative quality of community and university-based teams in terms of data collection. The findings also suggest that the two types of teams may be roughly comparable.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19129433     DOI: 10.1177/1524839908329120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Promot Pract        ISSN: 1524-8399


  5 in total

1.  Promotores as researchers: expanding the promotor role in community-based research.

Authors:  Atiba Nelson; Robin Lewy; Tiffany Dovydaitis; Francine Ricardo; Candace Kugel
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2011-03-22

2.  In-home air filtration for improving cardiovascular health: lessons from a CBPR study in public housing.

Authors:  Doug Brugge; Ellin Reisner; Luz T Padró-Martínez; Wig Zamore; Emmanuel Owusu; John L Durant
Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh       Date:  2013

3.  Nine key functions for a human subjects protection program for community-engaged research: points to consider.

Authors:  Lainie Friedman Ross; Allan Loup; Robert M Nelson; Jeffrey R Botkin; Rhonda Kost; George R Smith; Sarah Gehlert
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Views of academic and community partners regarding participant protections and research integrity: a pilot focus group study.

Authors:  Emily E Anderson
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.742

Review 5.  Research ethics education for community-engaged research: a review and research agenda.

Authors:  Emily E Anderson; Stephanie Solomon; Elizabeth Heitman; James M DuBois; Celia B Fisher; Rhonda G Kost; Mary Ellen Lawless; Cornelia Ramsey; Bonnie Jones; Alice Ammerman; Lainie Friedman Ross
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.742

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.