Coproduction of Research Questions and Research Evidence in Public Health: The Study to Prevent Teen Drinking Parties.
- Authors
- Wolfson, Mark; Wagoner, Kimberly G; Rhodes, Scott D; Egan, Kathleen L; Sparks, Michael; Ellerbee, Dylan; Song, Eunyoung Y; Debinski, Beata; Terrillion, Albert; Vining, Judi; Yang, Evelyn
- Year
- 2017
- Journal
- BioMed research international
- PMID
- 28695128
- DOI
- 10.1155/2017/3639596
- PMCID
- PMC5488318
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) provides a set of principles and practices intended to foster coproduction of knowledge. However, CBPR often has shortcomings when applied to population-level policy and practice interventions, including a focus on single communities and a lack of focus on policy change. At the same time, community trials focused on policy have shortcomings, including lack of stakeholder involvement in framing research questions and modest engagement in study implementation and interpretation and dissemination of results. We describe an attempt to hybridize CBPR and community trials by creating a partnership that included a national membership organization, a coalition advisory board, intervention and delayed intervention communities, and an academic study team, which collaborated on a study of community strategies to prevent underage drinking parties. We use qualitative and quantitative data to critically assess the partnership. Areas where the partnership was effective included (1) identifying a research question with high public health significance, (2) enhancing the intervention, and (3) improving research methods. Challenges included community coalition representatives' greater focus on their own communities rather than the production of broader scientific knowledge. This model can be applied in future attempts to narrow the gap between research, policy, and practice.
Organization of the community/research collaborative.
LLM interpretation
This is a organizational diagram illustrating the structure of a research collaborative. It features five interconnected entities: a Coalition advisory board, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, Study communities (consisting of 12 intervention and 12 delayed intervention communities), the Wake Forest School of Medicine study team, and Consultants. Double-headed arrows indicate bidirectional relationships or communication between these groups.
| # | Section | Preview |
|---|---|---|
| 20 | 3. Results — 3.1. Identification of the Topic, Development of the Collaborative, and Preparation and Submission of Grant Proposal | We used a multilevel approach to CBPR which was centered on partnerships with three groups: CADCA (a… |
| 21 | 3. Results — 3.1. Identification of the Topic, Development of the Collaborative, and Preparation and Submission of Grant Proposal | The CAB grew out of CADCA's Community/Researcher Partnership Project. This initiative, which was… |
| 22 | 3. Results — 3.1. Identification of the Topic, Development of the Collaborative, and Preparation and Submission of Grant Proposal | The WFSM study team had done conceptual and observational research focused on social host ordinances… |
| 23 | 3. Results — 3.1. Identification of the Topic, Development of the Collaborative, and Preparation and Submission of Grant Proposal | CADCA and the WFSM study team worked with the CAB to develop a proposal through a face-to-face… |
| 24 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation | A summary of the ways in which community partners—the CAB, CADCA, intervention sites, and delayed… |
| 25 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation — 3.2.1. Contributions of Partners in Design and Implementation of the Intervention | The greatest interest and involvement from members of the CAB were in design and implementation of… |
| 26 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation — 3.2.1. Contributions of Partners in Design and Implementation of the Intervention | In addition, individuals from intervention sites who had expertise in a particular area of… |
| 27 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation — 3.2.2. Contributions of Partners to Research Methods, Measurement, and Implementation | Members of the partnership also made important contributions to methods and measures. For example,… |
| 28 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation — 3.2.2. Contributions of Partners to Research Methods, Measurement, and Implementation | Second, multiple representatives of the CAB and intervention site coalitions reviewed and provided… |
| 29 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation — 3.2.2. Contributions of Partners to Research Methods, Measurement, and Implementation | Several representatives from delayed intervention coalitions also helped to generate ideas and make… |
| 30 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation — 3.2.2. Contributions of Partners to Research Methods, Measurement, and Implementation | In addition, a focus group of law enforcement representatives from the intervention coalitions was… |
| 31 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation — 3.2.3. Contributions of Partners to Interpretation and Dissemination of Results | After each fielding of the MYSurvey, we created and distributed a report highlighting key data for… |
| 32 | 3. Results — 3.2. Partner Involvement in Study Implementation — 3.2.3. Contributions of Partners to Interpretation and Dissemination of Results | In addition, an interpretation of results meeting took place in February 2017, in conjunction with… |
| 33 | 3. Results — 3.3. Community Coalition Leader Motives for Involvement | Intervention site coalition leaders' perceptions of the importance of various motives for… |
| 34 | 3. Results — 3.3. Community Coalition Leader Motives for Involvement | community (strongly agreed to by eight out of ten respondents). The parallel items for all of the… |
| 35 | 3. Results — 3.3. Community Coalition Leader Motives for Involvement | Table 4 presents the results of survey questions posed to both CAB members and intervention… |
| 36 | 3. Results — 3.3. Community Coalition Leader Motives for Involvement | There are striking differences in the way the two groups responded to the questions about drawbacks.… |
| 37 | 4. Discussion | In this paper, we have examined the conceptualization, development, and implementation of a… |
| 38 | 4. Discussion | We sought to accomplish this hybridization of CBPR and community trials—in large part—by… |
| 39 | 4. Discussion | The data we present also point to some challenges experienced with this approach. For example, CBPR… |
No entities extracted from this document yet.
No uploaded files.
In this knowledge base
| Title | Year | PMID |
|---|---|---|
| Rethinking the Way We Do Research: The Benefits of Community-Engaged, Citizen Science Approaches and Nontraditional Collaborators. | 2017 | 29028120 |
External
| Title | Authors | Journal | Year | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Co-production of knowledge as part of a OneHealth approach to better control zoonotic diseases. | Asaaga FA et al. | — | 2022 | → |
| Advancing complexity-informed health promotion: a scoping review to link health promotion and co-creation. | Heimburg DV et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Translating evidence-based behavioral weight loss into a multi-level, community intervention within a community-based participatory research framework: the Wellness Engagement (WE) Project. | LaRose JG et al. | — | 2021 | → |
| Methods for Population Research on Substance Use and Consequences. | Wolfson M et al. | — | 2020 | → |
| More drugs, more problems? Simultaneous use of alcohol and marijuana at parties among youth and young adults. | Egan KL et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| More than just Alcohol: Marijuana and Illicit Drug Use at Parties Attended by 15-20 Year Olds. | Egan KL et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| Social and Situational Party Characteristics Associated With High-Intensity Alcohol Use Among Youth and Young Adults. | Cox MJ et al. | — | 2019 | → |
| Promoting Community and Population Health in Public Health and Medicine: A Stepwise Guide to Initiating and Conducting Community-engaged Research. | Rhodes SD et al. | — | 2018 | → |
| Rethinking the Way We Do Research: The Benefits of Community-Engaged, Citizen Science Approaches and Nontraditional Collaborators. | Dick DM | — | 2017 | → |