BACKGROUND: Although there is strong scientific, policy, and community support for community-engaged research (CEnR)-including community-based participatory research (CBPR)-the science of CEnR is still developing. OBJECTIVE: To describe structural differences in federally funded CEnR projects by type of research (i.e., descriptive, intervention, or dissemination/policy change) and race/ethnicity of the population served. METHODS: We identified 333 federally funded projects in 2009 that potentially involved CEnR, 294 principal investigators/project directors (PI/PD) were eligible to participate in a key informant (KI) survey from late 2011 to early 2012 that asked about partnership structure (68% response rate). RESULTS: The National Institute on Minority Health & Health Disparities (19.1%), National Cancer Institute (NCI; 13.3%), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 12.6%) funded the most CEnR projects. Most were intervention projects (66.0%). Projects serving American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN) populations (compared with other community of color or multiple-race/unspecified) were likely to be descriptive projects (p<.01), receive less funding (p<.05), and have higher rates of written partnership agreements (p<.05), research integrity training (p<.05), approval of publications (p<.01), and data ownership (p<.01). AIAN-serving projects also reported similar rates of research productivity and greater levels of resource sharing compared with those serving multiple-race/unspecified groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is clear variability in the structure of CEnR projects with future research needed to determine the impact of this variability on partnering processes and outcomes. In addition, projects in AIAN communities receive lower levels of funding yet still have comparable research productivity to those projects in other racial/ethnic communities.
BACKGROUND: Although there is strong scientific, policy, and community support for community-engaged research (CEnR)-including community-based participatory research (CBPR)-the science of CEnR is still developing. OBJECTIVE: To describe structural differences in federally funded CEnR projects by type of research (i.e., descriptive, intervention, or dissemination/policy change) and race/ethnicity of the population served. METHODS: We identified 333 federally funded projects in 2009 that potentially involved CEnR, 294 principal investigators/project directors (PI/PD) were eligible to participate in a key informant (KI) survey from late 2011 to early 2012 that asked about partnership structure (68% response rate). RESULTS: The National Institute on Minority Health & Health Disparities (19.1%), National Cancer Institute (NCI; 13.3%), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 12.6%) funded the most CEnR projects. Most were intervention projects (66.0%). Projects serving American Indian or Alaskan Native (AIAN) populations (compared with other community of color or multiple-race/unspecified) were likely to be descriptive projects (p<.01), receive less funding (p<.05), and have higher rates of written partnership agreements (p<.05), research integrity training (p<.05), approval of publications (p<.01), and data ownership (p<.01). AIAN-serving projects also reported similar rates of research productivity and greater levels of resource sharing compared with those serving multiple-race/unspecified groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is clear variability in the structure of CEnR projects with future research needed to determine the impact of this variability on partnering processes and outcomes. In addition, projects in AIAN communities receive lower levels of funding yet still have comparable research productivity to those projects in other racial/ethnic communities.
Authors: Margaret Cargo; Lucie Lévesque; Ann C Macaulay; Alex McComber; Serge Desrosiers; Treena Delormier; Louise Potvin Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: M Viswanathan; A Ammerman; E Eng; G Garlehner; K N Lohr; D Griffith; S Rhodes; C Samuel-Hodge; S Maty; L Lux; L Webb; S F Sutton; T Swinson; A Jackman; L Whitener Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) Date: 2004-08
Authors: Timothy S Carey; Daniel L Howard; Moses Goldmon; James T Roberson; Paul A Godley; Alice Ammerman Journal: Acad Med Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.893
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: Lorenda Belone; Julie E Lucero; Bonnie Duran; Greg Tafoya; Elizabeth A Baker; Domin Chan; Charlotte Chang; Ella Greene-Moton; Michele A Kelley; Nina Wallerstein Journal: Qual Health Res Date: 2014-10-31
Authors: Katherine I Yang; Jane J Chung-Do; Loren Fujitani; Alyssa Foster; Shannon Mark; Yuito Okada; Zeyana Saad-Jube; Fadi Youkhana; Kathryn L Braun; Kevin Cassel; Susana Helm; Lana Sue Ka'opua; Peter J Mataira; Christy Nishita; Scott K Okamoto; Claire Townsend Ing; Kristine Qureshi; Karen Umemoto Journal: Hawaii J Med Public Health Date: 2019-03
Authors: John G Oetzel; Malia Villegas; Heather Zenone; Emily R White Hat; Nina Wallerstein; Bonnie Duran Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 9.308
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: Aida L Giachello; Karriem S Watson; Moira Stuart; Henrietta Barceló; Joanne Glenn; Shan Wang; Elena Navas-Nacher; Magdalena Nava; June McKoy; Erika de Riva; Jen Cooper; Lisa Aponte-Soto; Jacqueline Kanoon; Erica Martinez; Melissa Simon Journal: Prog Community Health Partnersh Date: 2019
Authors: Carlos Devia; Elizabeth A Baker; Shannon Sanchez-Youngman; Ellen Barnidge; Maxine Golub; Freda Motton; Michael Muhammad; Charmaine Ruddock; Belinda Vicuña; Nina Wallerstein Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2017-02-21