<T>Community Grand Rounds: Re-Engineering Community and Academic Partnerships in
Health Education—A Partnership and Programmatic Evaluation
<author> Kevin Heaton, MD1, George R. Smith, Jr. MPH2, Kimberly King, MPH3, Natalie
Watson, MA2,4, Jen Brown, MPH5, Gina Curry, BSPH6, Brandon Johnson, JD7, Betty Nichols,
MA8, Bernetta Pearson, RN9, Ernest Sanders, BA10, Norma Sanders, BS11, and Doriane Miller,
MD2,4,12
<run head>Community Grand Rounds
<run author>Heaton et al.
<info>(1) University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine; (2) University of Chicago
Medicine, Center for Community Health and Vitality, Urban Health Initiative; (3) University of
Chicago Medicine, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Office of Community Engagement and
Cancer Disparities; (4) University of Chicago, Institute for Translational Medicine; (5)
Northwestern University, Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, Alliance for Research in
Chicagoland Communities, Community-Engaged Research Center; (6) Northwestern University,
Feinberg School of Medicine; (7) Washington Park Consortium; (8) South Chicago Community
Leader; (9) Woodlawn Community Member; (10) Partnership for a Connected Illinois,
Broadband Illinois; (11) Greater Auburn Gresham Development Corporation; (12) University of
Chicago, Department of Medicine
<abstract subhead>Abstract
<abstract>Background: Community participation in population health improvement can assist
university researchers in targeting intervention resources more effectively and efficiently,
leading to more effective implementation of interventions, because of joint ownership of both
process and product. Two academic health centers partnered with community based
organizations to develop a bidirectional educational seminar series called “Community Grand
Rounds” (CGR), which identified health concerns of Chicago’s South Side residents and
provided information regarding university and community resources that addressed community
health concerns.
Objectives: We evaluated the community consultants’ perceptions of the quality and
effectiveness of the planning and implementation of the seminars that resulted from the
partnership.
Methods: We conducted one-on-one interviews and focus groups with community consultants to
assess their perceptions of the partnership using a tailored version of a previously developed
individual and focus group interview instrument. Analysis of the interview text was conducted
using grounded theory where themes were coded as they emerged.
Conclusions: CGR is an effective mechanism for providing needed community health
information in an easily accessible format. Additional work is needed to determine whether this
format represents a sustainable community–university partnership.
<abstract subhead>Keywords
<abstract>Community-based participatory research, anthropology, power sharing, needs
assessment, health promotion
<info>Submitted 29 October 2012, revised 22 March 2013, accepted 16 June 2013
<N>Collaborative partnerships between community and academic health organizations have
been shown to effectively improve population health, especially those partnerships that
emphasize community needs and input.1-6 CGR grew out of a need to improve the interactions
and communications between South Side residents and the University of Chicago Medicine. The
primary service area of the University of Chicago Medicine encompasses 34 communities on the
South Side of Chicago that are home to approximately 870,000, with a population that is 70%
African American.7 Historically, there have been tense and sometimes unfavorable interactions
and dialogue between local residents and the University of Chicago Medicine, resulting in
decades of mistrust and negative perceptions on behalf of area residents. African Americans,
whether residing on the South Side of Chicago or in other United States geographic areas, have
had a long-standing distrust of medical providers, especially academic medical centers where
research is developed and conducted.8-15 This mistrust can be attributed to a history of
segregation, institutional racism, and unethical medical practices such as those employed in the
Tuskegee Syphilis Study.16-20
In 2008, the Office of Community Affairs at the University of Chicago Medicine
conducted an appreciative inquiry process, a strength-based problem-solving approach,21 with
the intent of improving university relations with local residents. During the inquiry process, the
Office of Community Affairs obtained information from community members and thought
leaders on ways in which the University of Chicago Medicine could collaborate more effectively
and efficiently in tangible ways to improve health and health outcomes. The inquiry was an
informative experience, resulting in candid and helpful responses. Through the inquiry process,
the Office of Community Affairs was able to formulate a definition of healthy community “as
one that focused on the social, educational, and economic environment of its surroundings as
well as access to high quality primary health care” (Elsmo L. Personal communication, 2009).
Utilizing the principles of community-based participatory research, which has proved to be an
effective research paradigm resulting in more effective participation from community partners,2229 the agenda for the Center for Community Health and Vitality and its first community-based
information program, CGR, was shaped. Community members were interested in an approach
that provided them with accessible educational activities and allowed for engagement with both
academic and community professionals. This interest led to the development of CGR. After a 6month planning process, the first CGR took place in October 2010.
CGR was designed as a collaborative partnership in which community and academic
partners would work together to determine the topics, delivery vehicle, and location of each
educational seminar (Table 1). The community partners, also known as Community Consultants,
are active leaders in their communities with strong connections to their communities’ business
and social networks. Supported by researchers showing the benefits of paying community
partners as consultants and motivated by respect and high regard for the expertise of community
partners, CGR generated paid consultant opportunities for community members.30
<T>Table 1
<N>
Community Consultants were recruited from the leadership of the seven South Side sites
of the Local Initiatives Support Corporation/Chicago New Communities Program (NCP),
representing 11 distinct communities. Begun in 2003, NCP is a long-term initiative to support
comprehensive community development in 16 Chicago neighborhoods. NCP agencies are
committed to spending at least 10 years implementing their quality-of-life plans. Through local
and citywide partnerships, NCP communities address employment, housing, recreation,
commercial and retail development, child care, education, neighborhood aesthetics, and personal
security.
Unlike traditional academic health center grand rounds, which are held in hospital
auditoriums, these seminars were held at community venues. Community Consultants worked
collaboratively to recruit participants through the utilization of social media, email, word of
mouth, and printed marketing materials. Each consultant was responsible for recruiting
participants from their represented South Side community. Participants were targeted based on
the topic of the CGR. For example, Chicago Hyde Park Village, a group of aging community
residents, was consulted when the focus of the CGR was on older adults. Likewise, Chicago
Youth Programs, an organization that provides educational and mentoring services, was
significant in assisting with youth recruitment. Attendees of the CGR included representatives of
various community-based organizations, academic institutions, community residents, and health
professionals. Attendees were offered light refreshments before a 60-minute presentation on a
health-related topic that concluded with a 30-minute, open, question-and-answer period from the
audience. Presenters were chosen based on their expertise in a specific CGR topic area.
Community Consultants provided recommendations for potential presenters. Before the CGR,
presenters were provided with a brief description of the seminar. After the presentation and
question-and-answer session, representatives from community and academic entities were
available at tables with flyers and descriptive posters to share information about various health
services they provide.
Community Consultants controlled the CGR development process with assistance from a
Center for Community Health and Vitality staff member. During biweekly conference calls,
consultants selected the health-related problems that were of paramount importance to their
communities as topics for CGR events. Some examples of discussion topics include mental
health resources for youth impacted by violence, asthma, diabetes and obesity prevention, and
ethical issues regarding African Americans in research (Table 2). All participants received
audience feedback forms asking them to assign a value to the CGR experience, rate their prior
knowledge of the subject matter, rate the quality of the speakers, and rate their desire to have the
events in a community venue. In addition, participants were provided with GOURD (Gift of
Useable Research Data) generated from the community asset mapping work of the South Side
Health and Vitality Studies, a research unit within Center for Community Health and Vitality.
The GOURD consisted of geographical maps of place-based information about health resources
and was specific to the CGR topic. For example, during the adolescent depression CGR the
GOURD contained contact information for mental health resources.
<T>Table 2
<A>Evaluation
<N>Deciding on the correct community partners was integral to the program’s success. It was
important to select partners who had established relationships with neighboring organizations
and who worked collectively with community residents. NCP had done this while developing
quality-of-life plans for their represented communities.
Consistent with the principles of community-based participatory research, we conducted
a formative evaluation of our partnership’s adherence to the key tenets of community–academic
partnerships.31-33 Participatory researchers commonly use focus groups to document and evaluate
the experiences of community and academic partners. The downside of focus groups that we
hoped to counteract with in-depth individual interviews is that, in groups, dominant personalities
can suppress others’ views and individual feelings or dissent from majority opinion can be lost.34
We used the semistructured interview guide and focus group guide developed by the Detroit
Community-Academic Urban Research Center as templates in developing tailored survey
instruments of our own (Appendixes A and B include the interview guides).35 We evaluated
consultants’ perceptions of the quality and effectiveness of the partnership itself and of the
educational seminars resulting from the partnership. In addition, the major domains that we
sought to evaluate with our interview instruments include shared leadership, open two-way
communication, levels of trust, clear goals, co-learning, capacity building, power sharing,
equitable participation, and balance of knowledge generation and action. Interview text was
analyzed for repeating ideas and themes using a grounded theory approach.36
<A>Individual Interview and Focus Group Process
<N>Interviews were conducted by a trained medical student who was not a member of the
partnership. Four of the nine individual interviews were also attended by an academic partner
who assisted with data collection and interpretation, as well as meeting coordination. Community
and university partners scheduled individual interviews to accommodate each other’s schedules,
and interviews took place over several months in the fall of 2011. Scheduling individual
interviews and a single focus group with all partners present was difficult and took months. The
decision to conduct only a single focus group interview was because of the limited free time of
Community Consultants. The single focus group took place in a conference room at the facility
of one of the community partner’s organizations. Eight of the nine community partners were
present for the focus group (the single missing partner had a scheduling conflict). The same
medical student who conducted the individual interviews also conducted the focus group. A
university partner was present to help coordinate and to take notes, but did not pose any
questions or actively participate in the discussion. Interviews were conducted and audio-taped
between October 2011 and January 2012. Following Israel’s method for key informant
interviews, the two interviewers compared notes and discussed the interviews and their own
understanding of responses.37-39 Transcripts from the interviews were analyzed using grounded
theory for themes and were shared with all partners for clarification and to facilitate reflective
discussion and improvement of group dynamics. A formal coding protocol was not used, but
each interview was scanned for repeating ideas and phrases, measuring the frequency of
occurrence to determine collective themes. Confidentiality was ensured by de-identifying
transcribed interviews through the assignment of anonymous identification codes to each
interviewed partner. The interview protocol was reviewed and approved by the University of
Chicago Institutional Review Board as exempt.
<A>Individual Interview and Focus Group Results
<N>Community Consultants unanimously praised the partnership’s adherence to the principles
of collaborative and equitable “group process” in the planning of the CGR seminar events. Much
of the praise expressed by community partners in individual and focus group interviews
pertained to the university partners’ adherence to the principles of community-based
participatory research, for example, collaborative process, equitable group decision making, twoway communication, and transparency.
<quote>
They didn’t say, ‘Well we think you should talk about diabetes, or we think you
should, you know,’ and each community had an opportunity to put down a top 3, top 5
things for ourselves. [Focus group participant]
<N>
Community Consultants also cited the university partners’ insight into community life
and culture and their respect for the community. Multiple partners also expressed enthusiastic
satisfaction with the paid “contract model” used to solidify the terms of the partnership and to
specify the precise expectations of partners.
<quote>
[The academic partner] gets it. I think that while she’s on that research university
hospitals track she understands community. [Individual interviewee]
<A>Partners’ Expectations and Opinions
<N>Most Community Consultants embarked on the partnership with modest but hopeful
expectations. All hoped to benefit their communities by allying with the university, forming new
relationships, raising awareness of health and quality-of-life issues, bringing new knowledge to
the fight to improve the health and life of citizens, or bringing new funding streams or resources
to their community.
For most consultants, the CGR program met their expectations. For some, it exceeded
their expectations. The collaborative process and the community events were very well-received
by Community Consultants and residents. Consultants felt that they had co-created CGR, having
decided on topics relevant to their community, venues, and programming. Consultants were
impressed by the creativity of the seminars. The most cited example was the dramatic play
written by a university partner at the request of the Community Consultants. The accessibility of
educational content to community residents and the flexibility of medical center partners were
manifested by their willingness to tailor the programming to the needs of each unique
community.
Consultants’ enthusiasm was, however, tempered by their concern over the sustainability
and impact of one-night interventions attended by at most 100 to 200 community members.
Multiple consultants felt the one-night event was insufficient to effect lasting change and
expressed a wish to repeat seminars in their communities to reinforce the message.
Community Consultants affirmed that the educational seminars had facilitated
bidirectional communication between their community and the university medical center, but
raised two critical issues concerning reliable measurement of the effect of CGR: 1) What
outcomes signify success? and 2) How are we quantifying the effect of these seminars on the
community residents? In this way, community partners provided visionary leadership and a rich
source of ideas for improving and extending the influence of the CGR project.
<quote>
I think the overall sense of how successful the programs are is down the road.
Because I think what we’re trying to do is bring about a change in behavior through an
educational process, and I think the measurement perhaps for that is when we see
decreases in diabetes and decreases in those particular health disparities that are so
unique and common to us. [Focus group participant]
<A>Perceptions of CGR Seminar Effectiveness
<N>Community Consultants felt that the format and content of the seminars were effectively
tailored to the unique needs of each community. They were happily surprised by the ability of
university researchers to convey complex subject matter clearly and respectfully. Consultants
also felt that community members were able to speak back to university researchers, whether
through “question-and-answer” sessions or as co-members of expert panels sitting on the stage.
Many community partners expressed enthusiasm for the creativity and local knowledge
demonstrated in the CGR. Consultants were also pleased by the flexibility of program planning
to accommodate the community residents, which they believed increased attendance and
dissemination.
<quote>
I was worried my community would feel talked down to or like guinea pigs…
[but] the staff were adept at translating intellectual medical into laymen’s [terms] without
offending. They were able to convey the information very clearly and in deintellectualized ways that helped me and my community and the info was delivered in a
way me and my community could understand. [Individual interviewee]
I’ve been very pleased by the different types of events, and the flexibility….one of the
key things that stuck out to me is that it wasn’t just a bunch of events with talking
heads… There were sections for question and answer and for the experts to share their
expertise but there were opportunities for the people to relate to …whether it was a play
or poetry...that was really nice to be able to relate on a different level so people could
really click into the topic. [Individual interviewee]
<N>
Consultants were asked what they “learned from their partnership and how it expanded
their knowledge.” Consultants said that they learned about vital health information, their own
communities’ needs, how to engage people on public health issues, the inner workings of large
academic hospitals, the organizational credibility to be gained from associating with a renowned
research institution, and new conceptual frameworks through which to view their own work as
community advocates.
When asked what “tangible benefits the partnership and educational seminars had
brought to their community,” most consultants cited knowledge and increased awareness of
health and social issues. For the consultants, their affiliation with the university through the
partnership made knowledge more accessible, conferred “credibility” on their organization,
“improved reputation and legitimacy and sophistication around health issues,” and increased
their organization’s capacity to meaningfully increase health awareness for their constituents.
Community Consultants came to “trust” the university partners and the information
conveyed by university speakers at CGR, but this did not translate to the overall medical center.
This was highlighted by the following statement: “There is a tremendous amount of trust”
between the academic partners and my organization, “but the jury is still out about the U of C
overall.” Six of nine community consultants expressed a similar sense of trust in academic
partners involved with CGR, while either reserving judgment about or expressing persistent
distrust of the overall medical center; two partners expressed increased trust in the university
overall. This theme of trust in academic partners but wariness of the overall institution arose in
the focus group as well. When asked, “what comes to mind now [after having worked in the
CGR partnership] when you think about” the medical center, one partner articulated this theme:
<quote>
I would separate the people I work with from the institution… I feel good about
the doctors we’ve worked with and their intentions and the work they’ve done and efforts
they’ve put forth. I do feel strongly that… what do they call it, “community-based
participatory research,” I think you can hold up their work as a “grade A best practice.” I
would not translate that to the institution.
<N>Knowing that the overall medical center to some extent influenced funding, this wariness of
the overall medical center affected their expectation of the sustainability and meaning of the
partnership.
<A>Barriers
<N>Community consultants were asked what they thought were barriers to the CGR partnership
in its first year. Multiple consultants felt that the community events were not publicized far
enough in advance to entice as many audience members as the project intended. Consultants
cited the following as barriers to success: The distance between their own community and the
community in which the event was held, transportation, the constraint of hosting events in the
few after work hours when people were tired and hungry (food was provided at all events at the
recommendation of Community Consultants), and the limitation of one event per geographical
area inhibited lasting change and deeper levels of education and dialogue between community
and university. Some community members thought that a single educational seminar event was
enough to introduce community members to health information and health resources, but not
enough to effect meaningful change.
<A>Accomplishments
<N>Consultants felt that health topics discussed at the community seminars were well-chosen
and clearly explained by researchers and that “real-time” partner feedback was listened to and
used to modify the community programming. Consultants also cited the following as major
accomplishments of the seminars: Outreach to distant South Side communities not typically in
contact with the university, good attendance at events, bonding of community leaders from
geographically distant areas around common problems, facilitation of better communication
between the university and its surrounding communities, creative approaches to presentations
based on community recommendations, and communicating an expanded definition of “health”
including mental health and social determinants such as poverty, unemployment, and violence to
the community.
<A>Summary and Limitations
<N>CGR serves as a venue for translating evidence-based approaches on health improvement
into a community friendly format. CGR is in keeping with Strategic Goal #4 of the Clinical and
Translational Science Awards as stated by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards
Consortium: To Improve the Health of Communities and the Nation.40 In addition to providing
important information about health improvement, through a facilitated discussion, university
investigators learn about community health needs and priorities. Many academic–community
partnerships are based on interventions for a targeted condition, with interventions planned only
by the academic partner.41,42 Creating an environment where university investigators and
community members can share information about health needs and priorities helps to build trust
between community members and university investigators. By building trust through addressing
health education needs based on community priorities, future investigators may find it easier to
engage community in translational research activities.
While evaluating the program, Community Consultants expressed an interest in
measuring whether or not providing health education in the CGR format has a real and lasting
impact on reducing health disparities in their community. Although consultants expressed an
increased level of trust in the university faculty and staff responsible for planning CGR, there
remained a level of wariness as to whether the educational seminar series represented a true and
sustainable community–university partnership.
A limitation to this evaluation was that some survey questions proved to be ambiguous to
the community consultants. Another limitation of our evaluation is a lack of in-depth interview
data on the consultant’s perceptions of the medical center and partnership before the initiation of
CGR, which would have allowed us to make more reliable assertions about changes in specific
perceptions over time. Instead, we asked partners to “look back” and retrospectively recall how
they perceived the medical center before beginning the partnership. It is possible that the
presence of an academic partner at the individual and focus group interviews inhibited partners
from being completely candid or otherwise limited the validity of our evaluation. However,
given the partners' explicit expressions of doubts and critiques of both the Grand Rounds and the
academic partnership, we feel that it is unlikely that this concealed the true perceptions of our
community partners.
Further efforts need to be made to increase the level of involvement of university faculty
members in CGR as well as their level of engagement with the community. Community
Consultants have expressed pleasure in seeing university faculty members attending CGR events,
but would like to see more. Also, most faculty members who have attended have been
community-engaged researchers. Although the consultants viewed their attendance as an
attribute, they expressed a desire to have a more diverse set of university faculty attendees.
Although originally grant funded, CGR has demonstrated its value to University of
Chicago’s executive leadership and is now internally funded. The future of CGR depends on its
partnership expansion, presentation of topics of interest to the community, and proven value to
the university as well as our community partners. Plans are underway to integrate medical
students into the planning process as well as the development of a Youth Council to work on
CGR planning and adolescent audience outreach and development.
<A>Acknowledgments
<N>The authors acknowledge Marshall H. Chin, MD, MPH, and Arshiya A. Baig, MD, MPH,
both of the Department of Medicine at the University of Chicago, for their contributions to this
manuscript.
References
1.
Minkler M, Wallerstein N. Improving health through community organization and
community building. In Glanz K, Lewis BM, Rimer BK, editors. Health behavior and health
education. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1997. pp. 241-69.
2.
Buchanan DR. Building academic-community linkages for health promotion: A case
study in Massachusetts. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10(4):262-9
3.
Roussos ST, Fawcett SB. A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for
improving community health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21(1):369-402.
4.
Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-
participatory partnered research. JAMA. 2007;297(4):407-10.
5.
Wolff M, Maurana CA. Building effective community-academic partnerships to improve
health: a qualitative study of perspectives from communities. Acad Med. 2001;76(2):166-72.
6.
Plowfield L, Wheeler E, Raymond J. Time, tact, talent, and trust: Essential ingredients of
effective academic-community partnerships. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2005;26(4):217-20.
7.
Bureau of the Census. 2010 census data. Washington (DC): Author; 2011.
8.
Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of
African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14:537–46.
9.
Wasserman J, Flannery MA, Clair JM. Raising the ivory tower: The production of
knowledge and distrust of medicine among African Americans. J Med Ethics. 2007;33(3):177-80.
10.
Randall V. Dying while black. Dayton (OH): Seven Principles Press; 2006.
11.
Randall V. Slavery, segregation and racism: Trusting the health care system ain't always
easy! An African American perspective on bioethics. St. Louis University Public Law Review.
1996;15:191-235.
12.
Moseley KL, Freed GL, Bullard CM, Goold SD. Measuring African-American parents'
cultural mistrust while in a healthcare setting: A pilot study. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(1):15–
21.
13.
Hammond W, Matthews D, Mohottige D, Agyemang A, Corbie-Smith G. Masculinity,
medical mistrust, and preventive health services delays among community-dwelling AfricanAmerican men. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(12):1300-8.
14.
Boulware LE, Cooper LA, Ratner LE, LaVeist TA, Powe NR. Race and trust in the
health care system. Public Health Rep. 2003;118(2):358–65.
15.
Hammond W. Psychosocial correlates of medical mistrust among African American men.
Am J Community Psychol. 2010;45(1-2):87–106.
16.
Freimuth VS, Quinn SC, Thomas SB, Cole G, Zook E, Duncan T. African Americans’
views on research and the Tuskegee syphilis study. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52(5):797-808.
17.
Gamble VN. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. Am J
Public Health. 1997;87(11):1773-8.
18.
Corbie-Smith G. The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee syphilis study: Considerations
for clinical investigation. Am J Med Sci. 1999;317(1):5-8.
19.
Byrd WM, Clayton L. An American health dilemma: The medical history of African
Americans and the problem of race, Vol. 1. New York: Routledge; 2000.
20.
Byrd WM, Clayton L. An American health dilemma: Race, medicine, and health care in
the united states, 1900-2000. New York: Routledge; 2001.
21.
Whitney DD, Trosten-Bloom A. The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to
positive change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; 2010.
22.
Leung MW, Yen IH, Minkler M. Community based participatory research: A promising
approach for increasing epidemiology's relevance in the 21st century. Int J Epidemiol.
2004;33(3):499-506.
23.
Wallerstein NB, Duran B. Using community-based participatory research to address
health disparities. Health Promot Pract. 2006;7(3):312-23.
24.
Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. Methods in community-based participatory
research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
25.
Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to
intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J
Public Health. 2010;100 Suppl 1:S40-S46.
26.
Shoultz J, Oneha MF, Magnussen L, Hla MM, Brees-Saunders Z, Dela Cruz M, Douglas
M. Finding solutions to challenges faced in community-based participatory research between
academic and community organizations. J Interprof Care. 2006;20(2):133-44.
27.
Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research:
Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health.
1998;19(1):173-202.
28.
Lantz P, Viruell-Fuentes E, Israel B, Softley D, Guzman R. Can communities and
academics work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based
research partnership in Detroit. J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):495–507.
29.
Christopher S, Watts V, McCormick AKHG, Young S. Building and maintaining trust in
a community-based participatory research partnership. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1398-406.
30.
Flicker S. Who benefits from community-based participatory research? A case study of
the positive youth project. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35(1):70-86.
31.
Israel BA, Lichtenstein R, Lantz P, McGranaghan R, Allen A, Guzman J, et al. The
Detroit community-academic urban research center: Development, implementation, and
evaluation. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2001;7(5):1-19.
32.
Lantz P, Viruell-Fuentes E, Israel BA, Softley D, Guzman R. Can communities and
academics work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based
research partnership in Detroit. J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):495–507.
33.
Johnson D, Johnson F. Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon; 2003.
34.
Gubrium JF, Holstein JA. Handbook of interview research: Context and methods.
Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2002.
35.
Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. Methods in community-based participatory
research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
36.
Auerbach CF, Silverstein LB. Qualitative data: an introduction to coding and analysis.
New York: New York University Press; 2003.
37.
Shulz AJ, Israel BA, Lantz P. Instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics
within community-based participatory research partnerships. Eval Program Plann. 2003;26:249–
62.
38.
Lantz P, Viruell-Fuentes E, Israel BA, Softley D, Guzman R. Can communities and
academics work together on public health research? Evaluation results from a community-based
research partnership in Detroit. J Urban Health. 2001;78(3):495–507.
39.
Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA. Methods in community-based participatory
research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.
40.
Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium. (n.d.). About the CTSA
Consortium [cited 2013 Jun 13]. Available from: https://ctsacentral.org/about-us/ctsa.
41.
Abdulrahim S, El Shareef M, Alameddine M, Afifi RA, Hammad S. The potentials and
challenges of an academic–community partnership in a low-trust urban context. J Urban Health.
2010;87(6):1017-20.
42.
Ross LF, Loup A, Nelson RM, Botkin JR, Kost R, Smith GR, et al. The challenges of
collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: Points to consider.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics. 2010;5(1):19-31.
<table number>Table 1. <table title>Community Grand Rounds Collaborators
<table>
Name
Description
Claretian Associates
LISC/NCP community organization that serves
South Chicago, a community on Chicago’s
South Side
Greater Auburn Gresham Development
LISC/NCP community organization that serves
Corporation
Auburn Gresham, a community on Chicago’s
South Side
LISC/NCP
National Organization that helps nonprofit
community development organization build
healthy and sustainable communities
Network of Woodlawn
LISC/NCP community organization that serves
Woodlawn, a community on Chicago’s South
Side
Quad Communities Development Corporation LISC/NCP community organization that serves
Douglas, Grand Boulevard, and Kenwood,
communities on Chicago’s South Side
Teamwork Englewood
LISC/NCP community organization that serves
Englewood and West Englewood, communities
on Chicago’s South Side
Washington Park Consortium
LISC/NCP community organization that serves
Washington Park, a community on Chicago’s
South Side
Near North Service Corporation
Nonprofit, federally qualified health center that
provided community-based primary care in
Chicago
Northwestern University
Academic partner
University of Chicago
Academic partner
<table note>LISC, Local Initiative Support Corporation; NCP, New Communities Program.
<table number>Table 2. <table title>List of Community Grand Rounds
Title
It Shoulda Been Me
Topic
Posttraumatic stress disorder
and adolescent depression
Becoming a Piece of the Peace Conflict resolution, anger
management, and gender
issues
Wish You Were Here
The effects of domestic and
interpersonal violence on the
community and family unit
Live Life Before You Give
Sexually transmitted
Life
disease/infection prevention
and teen pregnancy
Eating, Praying, and Loving
Obesity and diabetes
Part 2: Keys to Your Good
prevention
Health
Timeless Treasures Within the Symptoms, diagnosis, and
Seasoned Circle
treatment for asthma,
sarcoidosis, bronchitis, and
other respiratory illnesses
Chicago Community
Auburn Gresham
Washington Park
South Chicago
Englewood
Grand Boulevard
Englewood
<A>Appendix A: Focus Group Interview Protocol for Community Partners, 2011
<N>Doriane Miller, MD, Kimberly King, MPH, and Kevin Heaton, BA
Introduction: Hello, my name is __________________ I’m going to be leading our focus
group discussion today. This is ______________, who will be taking notes and helping me
during our discussion. We will be here for about 90 minutes to 2 hours to talk about your
experience as a community consultant/partner with the University of Chicago Medical Center
and your experience with the development of the Community Grand Rounds seminar series.
Your candid insights and opinions on the first year of the community-academic partnership and
on the Community Grand Rounds program are extremely valuable, and will allow us to improve
the partnership and Community Grand Rounds for next year, so please say what’s on your mind
and what you think. Your answers will be de-identified and made anonymous to protect you and
to allow you to speak freely. There is no right or wrong answer.
<numbers>1. Please think back to over a year ago (or before you had formed a relationship with
the University of Chicago). At that time, what came to mind when you thought of the University
of Chicago Medical Center? [Probe: what did you associate with the University and Medical
Center?]
2.
What comes to mind now when you think of University of Chicago Medical Center?
[Probe: Has (or how has) working with the center for Community Health and Vitality on
Community Grand Rounds altered your perception of the medical center and the university?
What do you associate now with the university and medical center?]
3.
What has it been like to work with the University of Chicago Medical Center? [Probe:
Was it a positive experience? Has it been good for your community? Has it been good for you
personally? ]
4.
Community Grand Rounds was designed to enable “two-way communication” between
the University and communities. Do you think your community was able to communicate to the
University through Community Grand Rounds? Do you think The University successfully
communicated to your community through Community Grand Rounds? [Probe: can you think of
any instances examples of exchanges of information, assistance, or support between your
organization and the UCMC?]
5.
What did you like about the partnership itself? Did you like the way it was run? What
were good qualities of the partnership [probe: was there good, clear communication, was it
respectful, did it feel collaborative, did you feel valued, was there trust, was power shared, was
there equal participation from all partners]? Would you change anything?
6.
What did you dislike about the partnership? Were there characteristics that were not good
for you?
7.
What did you expect Community Grand Rounds to accomplish in your community?
7a.
Was it effective in accomplishing these goals? [Probe: if yes, what do you think made it
successful? If not, what prevented CGRs from being successful?]
8.
Knowing that your feedback will be a critical component of how the Community Grand
Rounds program is re-formatted (and hopefully improved) for next year, what else would you
like to share about the program that you think we should definitely know to be able to improve
the program?
<A>Appendix B: In-depth Semistructured Interview Protocol for Community Partners, 2011—
Interview Questions
<N>Doriane Miller, MD, Kimberly King, MPH, and Kevin Heaton, BA
<B>Partner Perceptions
<outline>(1) The roles partners perceive themselves to play in their own community.
1.
Please describe your role in the community? (Probe: How long have you lived in
your community? How long have you been in this role?)
(2)
The perception of partners of the health of the people in their community (“Assets and
Needs”).
2.
What are some of the best things about your community? Strengths? Positives?
(Examples: Resources, people, social gatherings, agencies, support, physical places.)
3.
What are some of the major problems or needs in your community?
4.
What are some of the major health needs faced by your community?
(3)
Partners’ perceptions of UCMC before and after the first year of the partnership?
5.
If you think back to before you began working as a partner with the University of
Chicago on the Community Grand Rounds program, do you remember what your opinion
was of the University and Medical Center? [Probes: What role did you actually see
UCMC playing in your community or know of UCMC playing in your community? Did
you think of UCMC as a friend, an obstacle, or as uninvolved in your community, or in
some other way? Why did you want to work as a consultant for the UCMC?]
6.
Has working with UCMC faculty and staff in this partnership altered your
perception of the UCMC? [Probes: Was there any specific perception that changed? Were
there specific incidents or characteristics of the partnership or a faculty or staff person that
positively or negatively affected your perception of UCMC?]
(4)
Partners’ opinions of the effectiveness of the Community Grand Rounds seminars.
(5)
Partners’ expectations of the partnership and of partnership-borne programs like
Community Grand Rounds.
7.
The Community Grand Rounds program just finished its first year. When you first
met with University of Chicago Medical Center (UCMC) staff last year in the initial
meetings as a consultant (or partner), what did you hope (or expect) that the partnership
and the Community Grand Rounds program would accomplish? [Probe: Would you say
you had low or high expectations?]
8.
Has the community-academic partnership between the UCMC and your
community met your expectations for the first year? Has it exceeded these expectations?
[Probes: If it has fallen short of your expectations, why do you think this happened? If
exceeded expectations, why do you think this happened?]
(6)
Partners’ experience working with UCMC.
9.
What has it been like to work with the UCMC?
9a.
How does it compare with working with other organizations you have worked
with?
<B>Group Dynamics
(7)
Conflict resolution; (8) sense of shared goals; (9) shared leadership; (10) two-way
communication; (11) trust, (12) sense of community and belonging; (13) co-learning; capacity
building; (14) equitable participation; (15) power sharing; and (16) balance between knowledge
generation and action.
10.
Do you feel that there was two-way communication in the partnership? (Probes:
Did you feel that you had the opportunity to voice your concerns and to share your
expertise with university staff? Do you feel that your opinion was listened to and
considered by other partners? Do you feel that university staff communicated effectively
to you in partnership meetings? Do you feel that university staff were able to effectively
communicate to your community at Community Grand Rounds seminars?)
11.
Did you feel that the partnership was transparent? (Probes: Did you feel that
important information was made available to you? Did you feel that you were given all
the necessary information to participate in the decision making process?)
12.
Could you please give me some examples of exchanges of information, assistance,
or support between your organization and the UCMC? (What about between your
organization and other organizations in the New Communities Program? [Probe:
Specifically ask for examples that do not involve university staff or the university]). Do
you think that this sharing or information, assistance, or support would have happened
with the formation of the community-academic partnership between UCMC and New
Communities Program?
13.
What have you personally learned from your association with the UCMC? Has it
expanded your knowledge at all, or helped to develop or refine any skills? Has it helped
you professionally in any way?
14.
How much trust do you feel there is between partners? [Probes: Do you trust that
the UCMC (or other community partners) share(s) the goals of your community and has
your community’s interests in mind? Do you trust UCMC and other community
partners?].
15.
Over the past year, would you say that the amount of trust between partners has
increased, decreased, stayed the same, or other?
16.
Did you feel that you could talk openly and honestly at partnership meetings and
conference calls?
(17) The value and effectiveness of Community Grand Rounds for each consultant’s
community.
17.
Has the community grand rounds program provided any tangible benefit to your
community thus far?
18.
Has your affiliation with the UCMC provided any tangible benefit to your
community thus far?
19.
What does your organization hope to accomplish by its affiliation with the
UCMC?
(18) Perceived successes of the partnership/seminars, and suggested improvements to
partnership/seminars.
20.
What do you think were the major accomplishments of the Community Grand
Rounds program in its first year? Please name two or more.
21.
What do you think were the major barriers facing the Community Grand Rounds
program in its first year? Please name two or more.
22.
Do you have any recommendations for how to improve Community Grand
Rounds for next year? (Probe: How can the partnership modify Community Grand
Rounds for next year to overcome the barriers or shortcomings of the program’s first
year?)