Irene Tamí-Maury1, Louis Brown2, Hillary Lapham3, Shine Chang4. 1. Department of Behavioral Science at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX. 2. Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences at The University of Texas Health Science Center (El Paso Regional Campus) in El Paso, TX. 3. Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences at The University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston, TX. 4. Department of Epidemiology at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX.
Abstract
Background: Over the last quarter century many new cyberspace platforms have emerged that facilitate communication across time, geographical distance and now even language. Whereas brick-and-mortar communities are defined by geographically local characteristics, a virtual community is an online community of individuals who socialize and connect around a common interest or theme using the Internet. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a public health approach that requires equitable partnerships between community members and researchers. Virtual communities abound on the Internet today, yet their application to CBPR is rarely considered. Methods: We examine three case studies to explore the advantages and challenges of virtual communities for CBPR, as well as several of the online tools CBPR practitioners can use to facilitate virtual community participation. Results: There is a potential utility of virtual communities in supporting CBPR efforts as they reduce the effects of geographical barriers, maximize the growth potential of the community, and provide portable and affordable channels forreal-time communication. Some caveats indicated in our case studies are: technological challenges, difficulty in crediting members' contributions and determining ownership of content, no face-to-face interaction may hinder relationship formation, cohesion, and trust resulting in lower engagement. Conclusions: The paper concludes with recommendations for the use of virtual communities in CBPR projects, such as in the coordination of statewide health care policy initiatives and in the dissemination of best public health practices.
Background: Over the last quarter century many new cyberspace platforms have emerged that facilitate communication across time, geographical distance and now even language. Whereas brick-and-mortar communities are defined by geographically local characteristics, a virtual community is an online community of individuals who socialize and connect around a common interest or theme using the Internet. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a public health approach that requires equitable partnerships between community members and researchers. Virtual communities abound on the Internet today, yet their application to CBPR is rarely considered. Methods: We examine three case studies to explore the advantages and challenges of virtual communities for CBPR, as well as several of the online tools CBPR practitioners can use to facilitate virtual community participation. Results: There is a potential utility of virtual communities in supporting CBPR efforts as they reduce the effects of geographical barriers, maximize the growth potential of the community, and provide portable and affordable channels forreal-time communication. Some caveats indicated in our case studies are: technological challenges, difficulty in crediting members' contributions and determining ownership of content, no face-to-face interaction may hinder relationship formation, cohesion, and trust resulting in lower engagement. Conclusions: The paper concludes with recommendations for the use of virtual communities in CBPR projects, such as in the coordination of statewide health care policy initiatives and in the dissemination of best public health practices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Internet; community networks; community-based participatory research
Authors: Stephen D Ritchie; Mary Jo Wabano; Jackson Beardy; Jeffrey Curran; Aaron Orkin; David VanderBurgh; Nancy L Young Journal: Health Place Date: 2013-10-03 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Vanessa C Delisle; Stephanie T Gumuchian; Danielle B Rice; Alexander W Levis; Lorie A Kloda; Annett Körner; Brett D Thombs Journal: Patient Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Irene Tamí-Maury; Carrie J Aigner; Judy Hong; Sara Strom; Mark S Chambers; Ellen R Gritz Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 2.037