330478
Evaluation of community-university research partnerships: Community co-investigator involvement in community-engaged research projects
Methods: Evaluators conducted a retrospective evaluation using a mixed method approach. Community and university co-PIs separately completed a survey and participated in a semi-structured interview to describe community involvement in all phases of the research project and the perceived value community perspectives provided. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and triangulated with interview data which were analyzed using content analysis.
Results: Preliminary findings reveal the majority of community investigators were involved in either an active or in a consulting role during all stages of the research process. The majority of community investigators reported active involvement in presenting research findings (100%), recruiting study participants (87%), implementing the intervention (76%), and developing the intervention (67%), with fewer reporting active involvement in choosing research methods (53%), interpreting study findings (47%), and analyzing collected data (40%). University investigators reported that community investigators added value to the research by providing knowledge of vulnerable populations, feasibility to implement within a community setting, and cultural context.
Conclusions: These findings contribute to an improved understanding of community-engaged research partnerships by describing how community investigators contribute to and influence research.
Learning Areas:
Conduct evaluation related to programs, research, and other areas of practicePublic health or related research
Learning Objectives:
Describe how community investigators participated in the research process in a community-engaged research project in collaboration with an academic investigator.
Discuss how community investigator perspectives influenced the research process among a cohort of funded community-engaged research projects.
Keyword(s): Community-Based Partnership & Collaboration, Evaluation
Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am qualified to present because I am the Evaluation Manager for the University of Minnesota, Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Office of Community Engagement for Health. I designed and implemented the evaluation discussed in this abstract. I have 10 years of community-based program evaluation experience as well as a Master's in Public Health and a Master's in Public Policy.
Any relevant financial relationships? No
I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.