A Review of Published Community-Based
Participatory Research (CBPR) &
Recommendations for Future Scholarly Work
Darius Tandon, PhD
Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Deputy Editor, Progress in Community Health Partnerships
Presentation at Academy Health Annual Meeting
June 2-5, 2007, Orlando, Florida
Today’s Presentation
1. Definition, Characteristics, Rationale for
CBPR
2. Review of Published CBPR
3. Priority Areas for Future CBPR
Publications
What is Community-Based Participatory
Research (CBPR)?
“A collaborative approach to research that
equitably involves all partners in the research
process and recognizes the unique strengths that
each brings”.
--W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2001)
What CBPR is NOT
1. ”Community-placed” research
2. Sporadic or symbolic inclusion of
communities
3. Basic research
Key Characteristics of CBPR
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Active collaboration and participation from all
partners at every stage of research
Co-learning—i.e., community residents and
researchers both contribute and learn from one
another
Projects are community-driven
Results are disseminated in useful ways
Research and intervention strategies are culturally
appropriate
Defines community as a unit of identity
-O’Fallon & Dearry (2002)
Why CBPR?
Growing recognition that “traditional
research”:
1. Has failed to solve complex health problems
2. Is not well suited for translational research
3. Does not adequately address locally identified
needs
A Vision for Progress in Community
Health Partnerships (Tandon et al., 2007)
•
•
Review of published CBPR in eight areas:
1. Original research
2. Work-in-progress/lessons learned
3. Theory and methods
4. Policy and practice
5. Education and training
6. Practical tools
7. Community perspective
8. Systematic reviews
Recommendations for future CBPR publications
Methods:
Recommendations for Future CBPR Publications
• Group judgment technique (i.e., Delphi Process) to
elicit perspectives of leaders in the field of CBPR
• Stage 1: Idea Generation
– 17 Editors & Editorial Fellows of PCHP provided
brief phrases on issues, problems, topics on which
eight types of PCHP articles should focus
• Stage 2: Idea Prioritization
– Specific recommendations emerging from Stage 1
given to PCHP External Editorial Board to prioritize
which thematic concepts they felt were most
important for CBPR articles submitted to PCHP to
address.
Original Research
Present Day
• Intervention & nonintervention studies
• Focused on an array of
health issues
• Many racial/ethnic
groups with whom
studies have been
conducted
Future Work
• Translation of CBPR
into policy
• How do partnership
characteristics and
processes influence
health outcomes?
Work in Progress/Lessons Learned
Present Day
• Formative research to
help design and modify
interventions
• Identify health problems
on which a partnership
should focus
• Challenges & obstacles
related to study design
and implementation
Future Work
• Building community
partnerships
• Challenges in conducting
CBPR
Theory and Methods
Present Day
• Theoretical influences on
CBPR (e.g., feminist
theory, critical social
theory, action research)
• Theoretical frameworks for
sustaining interventions;
dealing with race, class,
gender
• Use of “non-traditional”
research methods (e.g.,
photovoice, Delphi
process)
Future Work
• Research methods
• Use of theoretical and
conceptual frameworks to
guide CBPR projects
• Research design issues
Policy and Practice
Present Day
• Many examples of
health domains in
which CBPR has
influenced policy (e.g.,
environmental health,
smoking, violence
prevention,
occupational
healthcare)
Future Work
• Engaging community
members in policy and
practice
• How to implement
policy/practice based
on CBPR findings?
Education and Training
Future Work
Present Day
• CBPR curriculum and
• IOM recommendation
graduate medical
that CBPR be taught to all
education reform
public health students
• Training new investigators
• Several master’s and
• Training community
doctoral level courses
partners
• www.cbprcurriculum.info
Community Perspective
Present Day
• Little published work
documenting community
partners’ perspectives
• Most published work that
include community coauthors do not distinguish
academic and community
partners’ perspectives
• Some exceptions:
– Kelly et al. (2004)
– Chene et al. (2006)
Future Work
• Community perspectives on
research usefulness
• Problems communities
would like to see addressed
by partnerships
• Community perspectives on
roles in CBPR projects
Practical Tools
Present Day
• Two CBPR textbooks offer
several practical tools
(Minkler & Wallerstein,
2003; Isreal et al., 2005)
• Instruments to determine
whether project adheres to
partnership principles
• Tools to help develop and
sustain partnerships
Future Work
• Resources/tools to
develop community
partners’ skills
• Resources re: evaluation
strategies
Systematic Reviews
Present Day
• AHRQ Evidence Report
on CBPR (Viswanathan
et al., 2004):
– Quality of
methodology
– Community
involvement
– Desired health
outcomes
Future Work
• Reviews re: CBPR
methods
• Reviews re: CBPR
effectiveness
Closing Thoughts
• Need for well-written peer-reviewed journal
articles that describe various aspects of CBPR
– Such articles can facilitate the pace and process of
CBPR adoption among researchers and communities
For More Information…
Progress in Community Health Partnerships
http://pchp.press.jhu.edu
Darius Tandon
standon@jhmi.edu
Exercise
1. For your assigned topic, review the
recommendations found in Table 2
2. In your opinion…
–
–
Which recommendation is the highest priority?
Is there a recommendation that should be on the
list but is not?
3. Report back to larger group