Thomas R Belin1,2,3, Andrea Jones4, Lingqi Tang2,3, Bowen Chung2,3,5, Susan E Stockdale2,6, Felica Jones4, Aziza Wright4, Cathy D Sherbourne7, Judy Perlman7, Esmeralda Pulido8, Michael K Ong6,9, James Gilmore10, Jeanne Miranda2,3, Elizabeth Dixon11, Loretta Jones4, Kenneth B Wells2,3,7,12. 1. UCLA Department of Biostatistics, Center for Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA. 2. UCLA Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Los Angeles, CA. 3. UCLA Semel Institute Center for Health Services and Society, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Healthy African American Families II, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA. 6. Greater Los Angeles VA Medical Center, Sepulveda, CA. 7. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. 8. LA Care, Los Angeles, CA. 9. UCLA Department of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA. 10. Behavioral Health Services, Inc., Gardena, CA. 11. UCLA School of Nursing, Los Angeles, CA. 12. UCLA Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
Objective: With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research. Methods:Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the study's design committee are highlighted. Results: CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations. Conclusions: Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the study's scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.
RCT Entities:
Objective: With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research. Methods: Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the study's design committee are highlighted. Results: CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations. Conclusions: Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the study's scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.
Entities:
Keywords:
CPIC; CPPR; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Depression; Health Service; Randomization
Authors: K B Wells; C Sherbourne; M Schoenbaum; N Duan; L Meredith; J Unützer; J Miranda; M F Carney; L V Rubenstein Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Donald Musa; Richard Schulz; Roderick Harris; Myrna Silverman; Stephen B Thomas Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Bowen Chung; Loretta Jones; Andrea Jones; Charles E Corbett; Theodore Booker; Kenneth B Wells; Barry Collins Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jeanne Miranda; Michael K Ong; Loretta Jones; Bowen Chung; Elizabeth L Dixon; Lingqi Tang; Jim Gilmore; Cathy Sherbourne; Victoria K Ngo; Susan Stockdale; Esmeralda Ramos; Thomas R Belin; Kenneth B Wells Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kenneth B Wells; Loretta Jones; Bowen Chung; Elizabeth L Dixon; Lingqi Tang; Jim Gilmore; Cathy Sherbourne; Victoria K Ngo; Michael K Ong; Susan Stockdale; Esmeralda Ramos; Thomas R Belin; Jeanne Miranda Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-05-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Peter Mendel; Jennifer O'Hora; Lily Zhang; Susan Stockdale; Elizabeth L Dixon; Jim Gilmore; Felica Jones; Andrea Jones; Pluscedia Williams; Mienah Zulfacar Sharif; Zoe Masongsong; Farbod Kadkhoda; Esmeralda Pulido; Bowen Chung; Kenneth B Wells Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2020-05-19
Authors: Amy Rusch; Lindsay M DeCamp; Celeste M Liebrecht; Seo Youn Choi; Gregory W Dalack; Amy M Kilbourne; Shawna N Smith Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2021-05-24