John G Oetzel1, Malia Villegas, Heather Zenone, Emily R White Hat, Nina Wallerstein, Bonnie Duran. 1. John G. Oetzel is with the Department of Management Communication, University of Waikato, New Zealand. Malia Villegas and Heather Zenone are with the Policy Research Center at the National Congress of American Indians, Washington, DC. Emily R. White Hat is with the Collaborative Research Center for American Indian Health at Sanford Research, Sioux Falls, SD. Nina Wallerstein is with the Center for Participatory Research at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. Bonnie Duran is with the School of Public Health, School of Social Work, and the Indigenous Wellness Research Institute at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We explored the relationship of community-engaged research final approval type (tribal government, health board, or public health office (TG/HB); agency staff or advisory board; or individual or no community approval) with governance processes, productivity, and perceived outcomes. METHODS: We identified 294 federally funded community-engaged research projects in 2009 from the National Institutes of Health's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers, and Native American Research Centers for Health databases. Two hundred (68.0%) investigators completed a survey about governance processes and productivity measures; 312 partners (77.2% of 404 invited) and 138 investigators (69.0% of 200 invited) completed a survey about perceived outcomes. RESULTS: Projects with TG/HB approval had increased likelihood of community control of resources (odds ratios [ORs] ≥ 4.80). Projects with other approvals had decreased likelihood of development or revision of institutional review board policies (ORs ≤ 0.37), having written agreements (ORs ≤ 0.17), and agreements about publishing (ORs ≤ 0.28), data use (ORs ≤ 0.17), and publishing approval (ORs ≤ 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Community-engaged research projects with TG/HB approval had strong stewardship of project resources and agreements. Governance as stewardship protects community interests; thus, is an ethical imperative for communities, especially native communities, to adopt.
OBJECTIVES: We explored the relationship of community-engaged research final approval type (tribal government, health board, or public health office (TG/HB); agency staff or advisory board; or individual or no community approval) with governance processes, productivity, and perceived outcomes. METHODS: We identified 294 federally funded community-engaged research projects in 2009 from the National Institutes of Health's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Prevention Research Centers, and Native American Research Centers for Health databases. Two hundred (68.0%) investigators completed a survey about governance processes and productivity measures; 312 partners (77.2% of 404 invited) and 138 investigators (69.0% of 200 invited) completed a survey about perceived outcomes. RESULTS: Projects with TG/HB approval had increased likelihood of community control of resources (odds ratios [ORs] ≥ 4.80). Projects with other approvals had decreased likelihood of development or revision of institutional review board policies (ORs ≤ 0.37), having written agreements (ORs ≤ 0.17), and agreements about publishing (ORs ≤ 0.28), data use (ORs ≤ 0.17), and publishing approval (ORs ≤ 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Community-engaged research projects with TG/HB approval had strong stewardship of project resources and agreements. Governance as stewardship protects community interests; thus, is an ethical imperative for communities, especially native communities, to adopt.
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Lawrence W Green; Lisa M Klesges; David B Abrams; Edwin B Fisher; Michael G Goldstein; Laura L Hayman; Judith K Ockene; C Tracy Orleans Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2006-04
Authors: Deborah J Morton; Joely Proudfit; Daniel Calac; Martina Portillo; Geneva Lofton-Fitzsimmons; Theda Molina; Raymond Flores; Barbara Lawson-Risso; Romelle Majel-McCauley Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Christina M Pacheco; Sean M Daley; Travis Brown; Melissa Filippi; K Allen Greiner; Christine M Daley Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Nancy Shore; Ruta Brazauskas; Elaine Drew; Kristine A Wong; Lisa Moy; Andrea Corage Baden; Kirsten Cyr; Jocelyn Ulevicus; Sarena D Seifer Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Dmitry Khodyakov; Susan Stockdale; Felica Jones; Elizabeth Ohito; Andrea Jones; Elizabeth Lizaola; Joseph Mango Journal: Soc Ment Health Date: 2011-11-01
Authors: Anna Harding; Barbara Harper; Dave Stone; Catherine O'Neill; Patricia Berger; Stuart Harris; Jamie Donatuto Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Julie Lucero; Nina Wallerstein; Bonnie Duran; Margarita Alegria; Ella Greene-Moton; Barbara Israel; Sarah Kastelic; Maya Magarati; John Oetzel; Cynthia Pearson; Amy Schulz; Malia Villegas; Emily R White Hat Journal: J Mix Methods Res Date: 2016-02-26
Authors: Vanessa Y Hiratsuka; Julie A Beans; Lisa G Dirks; Jaedon P Avey; Karen Caindec; Denise A Dillard Journal: Am Indian Alsk Native Ment Health Res Date: 2018
Authors: Susan E Collins; Seema L Clifasefi; Joey Stanton; Kee J E Straits; Eleanor Gil-Kashiwabara; Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa; Andel V Nicasio; Michele P Andrasik; Starlyn M Hawes; Kimberly A Miller; Lonnie A Nelson; Victoria E Orfaly; Bonnie M Duran; Nina Wallerstein Journal: Am Psychol Date: 2018-01-22
Authors: Stephanie Russo Carroll; Michele Suina; Mary Beth Jäger; Jessica Black; Stephen Cornell; Angela A Gonzales; Miriam Jorgensen; Nancy Lynn Palmanteer-Holder; Jennifer S De La Rosa; Nicolette I Teufel-Shone Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 4.614