1 / 14

Community Engaged Research: Measurement of Process and Outcomes

Community Engaged Research: Measurement of Process and Outcomes. Julie E. Lucero MPH, PhD(c) University of New Mexico jelucero@salud.unm.edu January 24, 2012 Community–Engaged Research Outcomes Workgroup. Gaps to Fill. Community engaged research (CEnR) is increasing

kane
Download Presentation

Community Engaged Research: Measurement of Process and Outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Community Engaged Research: Measurement of Process and Outcomes Julie E. Lucero MPH, PhD(c) University of New Mexico jelucero@salud.unm.edu January 24, 2012 Community–Engaged Research Outcomes Workgroup

  2. Gaps to Fill • Community engaged research (CEnR) is increasing • Gaps remain in how processes work • Gaps remain in how success of partnerships are evaluated. • Lack of conceptual models that are empirically tested and validated.

  3. CBPR Model • Wallerstein (2008) proposed a CBPR model • NCMHD funding for 3- year pilot project • University of New Mexico and Washington • Literature review 2004-2008, expanded the 2004 AHRQ • Internet survey with 96 CBPR project participants • Interpretation with National Community Advisory Boord • Model provides evaluation framework • four major components: context, group dynamics, interventions, and outcomes.

  4. Examples of items in Matrix • The political and social climate seem "right" for starting a collaborative project like this one. • I have a lot of respect for the other people involved in this collaboration. • I can talk openly and honestly at the Board meetings. • I am comfortable expressing my point of view. • The partnership has been successful at preparing tribal leadership. • To what extent has your partnership strengthened ATOD-related policies and regulations in the community?‘ • The partnership positively influences community health.

  5. Instrument Matrix • Attempting to fill the gap of how success of partnerships are evaluated. • The goal was to provide a matrix of available instruments/measures for researchers • to evaluate their own partnerships’ success, and • to point to future research needs to uncover the quality and usefulness of instruments and their measures

  6. Methods • Literature search- 258 articles • Instruments measuring the distinct “processes” and “outcomes” • 46 unique studies totaling 224 measures • Instrument = whole tool developed by a single author(s) • Measures = specific parts of the instrument • Detailed description see: • Sandoval JA, Lucero J, Oetzel J, Avila M, Belone L, Mau M, Pearson C, Tafoya G, Duran B, Iglesias Rios L, Wallerstein N. (2011)Process and outcome constructs for evaluating community-based participatory research projects: a matrix of existing measures. Health Educ Res.  PMID: 21940460 • http://hsc.unm.edu/SOM/fcm/cpr/cbprmodel.shtml

  7. Example: The Wilder Collaboration Factors inventory (Mattessich, Monsey, Murray-Close 2001) • Collaboration assessment-self guided • 40 item instrument-20 research-tested success factors • CBPR model used to organize • Community Capacity • Favorable political and social climate (2) • History of collaboration (2) • Collaborative group legitimate leader (2) • Group Dynamics • Open and frequent communication (3) • Mutual respect, understanding and trust (2) • Flexibility (2) • Outcomes • Members see collaboration as self-interest (1)

  8. Results • 28 measures for Context • least number of identified measures • Community Capacity (11) • 162 measure for Group Dynamics • Highest number of measures • Participatory Decision Making & Negotiation (24) • 22 Outcomes • Empowerment & Community Capacity (22)

  9. Examples of items in Matrix • The political and social climate seem "right" for starting a collaborative project like this one. • I have a lot of respect for the other people involved in this collaboration. • I can talk openly and honestly at the Board meetings. • I am comfortable expressing my point of view. • The partnership has been successful at preparing tribal leadership. • To what extent has your partnership strengthened ATOD-related policies and regulations in the community?‘ • The partnership positively influences community health.

  10. What did we learn? • Only 25% of the measures evaluated had reliability or validity information. • Longitudinal evaluation is lacking. • Important partnership factors like trust are understudied. • Measures focus on researcher characteristics like dependability, reliability, approachability, communication skills. • CDC partnership trust tool (CDC Prevention Research Centers 2008) • Coalition Self Assessment Survey (Kenney and Sofaer 2000) • Documentation and Evaluation of CBPR Partnerships (Israel, Lantz et al. 2005) • Evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within CBPR (Schulz, Israel et al. 2003)

  11. From the literature • Trust is dynamic, not static • Is directly correlated to time • Easier to lose trust than to earn it • Dependent on • Person doing the trusting • The situation (historical context) • The person getting the trust • Current measures focus on this aspect. • Our current research attempts to get at all three aspects and improve on longitudinal measure

  12. Research for Improved Health: A National Study of Community-Academic Partnerships • Partners: • National Congress of American Indians Policy Research Center (Sarah Hicks, PI) • University of New Mexico Center for Participatory Research (Nina Wallerstein, co-PI) • University of Washington Indigenous Wellness Research Institute (Bonnie Duran, co-PI) • Funder: NIH/Indian Health Service partnership, Native American Research Centers for Health (NARCH) • 2009-2013

  13. CBPR Conceptual Model

More Related