Suchergebnisse

The practice of community based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved over the past 20 years with the recognition that health equity is best achieved when academic researchers form collaborative partnerships with communities. This article theorizes the possibility that core principles of CBPR cannot be realistically applied unless unequal power relations are identified and addressed. It provides theoretical and empirical perspectives for understanding power, privilege, researcher identity and academic research team composition, and their effects on partnering processes and health disparity outcomes. The team's processes of conducting seven case studies of diverse partnerships in a national cross-site CBPR study are analyzed; the multi-disciplinary research team's self-reflections on identity and positionality are analyzed, privileging its combined racial, ethnic, and gendered life experiences, and integrating feminist and post-colonial theory into these reflections. Findings from the inquiry are shared, and incorporating academic researcher team identity is recommended as a core component of equalizing power distribution within CBPR.

Objectives. We explored the relationship of community-engaged research final approval type (tribal government, health board, or public health office (TG/HB); agency staff or advisory board; or individual or no community approval) with governance processes, productivity, and perceived outcomes.

AbstractIncreasingly, understanding how the role of historical events and context affect present-day health inequities has become a dominant narrative among Native American communities. Historical trauma, which consists of traumatic events targeting a community (e.g., forced relocation) that cause catastrophic upheaval, has been posited by Native communities and some researchers to have pernicious effects that persist across generations through a myriad of mechanisms from biological to behavioral. Consistent with contemporary societal determinants of health approaches, the impact of historical trauma calls upon researchers to explicitly examine theoretically and empirically how historical processes and contexts become embodied. Scholarship that theoretically engages how historically traumatic events become embodied and affect the magnitude and distribution of health inequities is clearly needed. However, the scholarship on historical trauma is limited. Some scholars have focused on these events as etiological agents to social and psychological distress; others have focused on events as an outcome (e.g., historical trauma response); others still have focused on these events as mechanisms or pathways by which historical trauma is transmitted; and others have focused on historical trauma-related factors (e.g., collective loss) that interact with proximal stressors. These varied conceptualizations of historical trauma have hindered the ability to cogently theorize it and its impact on Native health. The purpose of this article is to explicate the link between historical trauma and the concept of embodiment. After an interdisciplinary review of the "state of the discipline," we utilize ecosocial theory and the indigenist stress-coping model to argue that contemporary physical health reflects, in part, the embodiment of historical trauma. Future research directions are discussed.

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to establish the psychometric properties of 22 measures from a community-based participatory research (CBPR) conceptual model. Design. The design of this study was an online, cross-sectional survey of academic and community partners involved in a CPBR project. Setting. CPBR projects (294) in the United States with federal funding in 2009. Subjects. Of the 404 academic and community partners invited, 312 (77.2%) participated. Of the 200 principal investigators/project directors invited, 138 (69.0%) participated. Measures. Twenty-two measures of CBPR context, group dynamics, methods, and health-related outcomes were examined. Analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis to establish factorial validity and Pearson correlations to establish convergent and divergent validity were used. Results. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated strong factorial validity for the 22 constructs. Pearson correlations (p < .001) supported the convergent and divergent validity of the measures. Internal consistency was strong, with 18 of 22 measures achieving at least a .78 Cronbach α. Conclusion. CBPR is a key approach for health promotion in underserved communities and/or communities of color, yet the basic psychometric properties of CBPR constructs have not been well established. This study provides evidence of the factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity and the internal consistency of 22 measures related to the CBPR conceptual model. Thus, these measures can be used with confidence by both CBPR practitioners and researchers to evaluate their own CBPR partnerships and to advance the science of CBPR.