Literature DB >> 22616206

Key informants and community members in community-based participatory research: one is not like the other.

Stacey A McKenna1, Patricia G Iwasaki, Tracey Stewart, Deborah S Main.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As community-based participatory research (CBPR) gains national prominence, it is increasingly important to examine critically the meaning of community participation and the roles of research participants. Many CBPR projects rely heavily on key informants, but because of their social position, economic status, or professional role, they may not represent the views of community members.
OBJECTIVES: This paper compares key informant and community member perspectives about neighborhood health to explore the types of knowledge produced by each group.
METHODS: The data used for this study are part of a larger CBPR project, Taking Neighborhood Health to Heart (TNH2H). We conducted five focus groups with community members and 16 interviews with key informants.
RESULTS: Reported knowledge and beliefs about the community generally came from three perspectives: Primary key informant (key informant reports about neighborhoods and community members), secondary key informant (key informant assessments of community member beliefs and motivations for their behaviors), and community members. A number of differences emerged between key informants and community members in the types of knowledge they shared, revealing important assumptions held by key informants about community members.
CONCLUSIONS: As more funders call for health researchers to engage community members to improve the reach, impact, and translation of their research to improve population health, they must clarify what is meant by community engagement and recognize the roles that people's relative status and positions in society play in their knowledge about a given place.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22616206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prog Community Health Partnersh        ISSN: 1557-0541


  5 in total

1.  Using co-production to implement patient reported outcome measures in third sector organisations: a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Alexis Foster; Alicia O'Cathain; Janet Harris; Guy Weston; Lucy Andrews; Olga Andreeva
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2022-07-19

2.  Guidelines for research recruitment of underserved populations (EERC).

Authors:  Yui Matsuda; Jada L Brooks; Linda S Beeber
Journal:  Appl Nurs Res       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 2.257

3.  Soliciting views of various communities on health research: a prelude to engagement in specific research projects.

Authors:  Howard L Taras; Michael W Kalichman; Gery Schulteis; Jill Dumbauld; Yvonne Bell; Fe Fidelis Seligman; Kathy D West
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  Feasibility of population screening tests to establish a healthy ageing trajectory.

Authors:  Susan J Gordon; Karen A Grimmer; Nicky Baker; Elaine Bell; John Coveney; Johanna H Jordaan; Christopher Lind; Tania Marin; Joanne Murray; Lynda H Norton; Lua Perimal-Lewis; Karen Sparrow; Margie A Steffens; Jolene Thomas; Michael Kidd
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2019-01-11

5.  Flexible Roles for American Indian Elders in Community-Based Participatory Research.

Authors:  Shannon Whitewater; Kerstin M Reinschmidt; Carmella Kahn; Agnes Attakai; Nicolette I Teufel-Shone
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2016-06-02       Impact factor: 2.830

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.