The Experts below are selected from a list of 360 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Meredith Minkler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
engaging homeless youth in community based Participatory Research a case study from skid row los angeles
Health Promotion Practice, 2014Co-Authors: Analilia P Garcia, Meredith Minkler, Zelenne Cardenas, Cheryl Grills, Charles PorterAbstract:Growing evidence highlights the benefits to youth of involvement in community-based Participatory Research. Less attention has been paid, however, to the contributions youth can make to helping change health-promoting policy through such work. We describe a multi-method case study of a policy-focused community-based Participatory Research project in the Skid Row (Central City East) area of downtown Los Angeles, California, where a small group of homeless youth worked with adult mentors to develop and conduct a survey of 96 homeless youth and used the findings to help secure health-promoting policy change. We review the partnership's work at each stage of the policy-making process; its successes in changing policy regarding recreation, juvenile justice, and education; and the challenges encountered, especially with policy enforcement. We share lessons learned, including the importance of strong adult mentors and of policy environments conducive to sustainable, health-promoting change for marginalized youth. Language: en
-
community based Participatory Research and policy advocacy to reduce diesel exposure in west oakland california
American Journal of Public Health, 2011Co-Authors: Priscilla A Gonzalez, Meredith Minkler, Analilia P Garcia, Margaret Gordon, Catalina Garzon, Meena Palaniappan, Swati Prakash, Brian BeveridgeAbstract:We conducted a multimethod case study analysis of a community-based Participatory Research partnership in West Oakland, California, and its efforts to study and address the neighborhood's disproportionate exposure to diesel air pollution. We employed 10 interviews with partners and policymakers, participant observation, and a review of documents. Results of the partnership's truck count and truck idling studies suggested substantial exposure to diesel pollution and were used by the partners and their allies to make the case for a truck route ordinance. Despite weak enforcement, the partnership's increased political visibility helped change the policy environment, with the community partner now heavily engaged in environmental decision-making on the local and regional levels. Finally, we discussed implications for Research, policy, and practice.
-
linking science and policy through community based Participatory Research to study and address health disparities
American Journal of Public Health, 2010Co-Authors: Meredith MinklerAbstract:With its commitment to balancing Research and action, community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) is well suited to efforts at the intersections of science, practice, and policy to eliminate health disparities. Drawing on a larger study, we use 2 case studies to highlight the role of CBPR in helping achieve policy changes promoting, respectively, access to healthy foods (Bayview, San Francisco, CA) and higher air quality standards (Harlem, New York, NY). We then present facilitating factors and challenges faced across all 10 case studies from the larger study. Although we underscore the importance of analyzing contribution rather than claiming attribution in policy-focused work, CBPR's attention to both the distributive and the procedural justice necessary for eliminating health disparities may make it a particularly relevant approach in such work.
-
community based Participatory Research for health from process to outcomes
2008Co-Authors: Meredith Minkler, Nina WallersteinAbstract:Tables, Figures, and Exhibits. The Editors. The Contributors. Acknowledgments. PART ONE: INTRODUCTION TO COMMUNITY-BASED Participatory Research. One: Introduction to Community-Based Participatory Research: New Issues and Emphases (Meredith Minkler and Nina Wallerstein). The Growing Support for CBPR. Semantics and Core Principles. CBPR and the Fight to Eliminate Health Disparities. Goals of This Book: Continuing Concerns and New Emphases. Organization of This Book. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Two: The Theoretical, Historical, and Practice Roots of CBPR and Related Participatory Traditions (Nina Wallerstein and Bonnie Duran). Historical Roots. Core Concepts and New Theories. Feminism, Poststructuralism, and Postcolonialism. Paulo Freire and Praxis. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Three: Critical Issues in Developing and Following Community-Based Participatory Research Principles (Barbara A. Israel, Amy J. Schulz, Edith A. Parker, Adam B. Becker, Alex J. Allen III, and J. Ricardo Guzman). CBPR Definition and Key Principles. Issues in Developing and Following CBPR Principles. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Four: Bringing Experimental Design to Community-Partnered Participatory Research (Loretta Jones, Paul Koegel, and Kenneth B. Wells). Using CPPR as a Framework. The Fit Between Designs and Projects. Experimental Design Lessons from the Building Wellness Pilot. Applying the Lessons: CPIC. The Road Ahead for CPIC. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. PART TWO: POWER, TRUST, AND DIALOGUE: WORKING WITH DIVERSE COMMUNITIES IN COMMUNITY-BASED Participatory Research. Five: The Dance of Race and Privilege in Community-Based Participatory Research (Vivian Chavez, Bonnie Duran, Quinton E. Baker, Magdalena M. Avila, Nina Wallerstein). Framework of Oppression and Racism. Translating Culture. White Privilege. Building Alliances Across Differences. Recommendations for Research and Practice. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Six: Are Academics Irrelevant? Approaches and Roles for Scholars in Community-Based Participatory Research (Randy Stoecker). Options for the Academic. Recommendations for the Academic. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Seven: Community-Based Participatory Research with Cambodian Girls in Long Beach, California: A Case Study (Ann Cheatham-Rojas and Eveline Shen). ACRJ and the HOPE Projects. Setting the Stage for Participatory Research. Identifying Sexual Harassment as an Issue. Researching the Problem. Moving into Action. Khmer Girls in Action: A Youth-Led Organization Is Born. Lessons Learned. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Eight: CBPR with a Hidden Population: The Transgender Community Health Project a Decade Later (Kristen Clements-Nolle and Ari Max Bachrach). The Transgender Community and the CBPR Study. Project Impact over Ten Years. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. PART THREE: SELECTING ISSUES AND EVALUATING OUTCOMES WITH COMMUNITIES. Nine: Community-Driven Asset Identification and Issue Selection (Meredith Minkler and Trevor Hancock). Core Principles and Considerations. Tools for Identifying Community Resources and Concerns. Issue Selection in CBPR. When Preexisting Goals Constrain Issue Selection. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Ten: Using Web-Based Tools to Build Capacity for CBPR: Two Case Studies of American Indian Leadership Development (Marita Jones, Shelley Frazier, Chris Percy, Jeffrey L. Stowell, Kristine Maltrud, and Nina Wallerstein). Introduction to Case Studies. Case 1: Healthy Native Communities Fellowship. Case 2: Just Move It. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Eleven: Using Photovoice for Participatory Assessment and Issue Selection: Lessons from a Family, Maternal and Child Health Department (Caroline C. Wang and Cheri A. Pies). Background and Conceptual Framework. Community Assessment. A Photovoice Case Study from a County Health Department. Reflecting on Value Added. Recommendations and Implications. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Twelve: Issues in Participatory Evaluation (Jane Springett and Nina Wallerstein). What Is Evaluation? What Is Participatory Evaluation? Use of PE in Community Health. PE Issues in Community Health Promotion. Youth Link Case Study. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. PART FOUR: METHODOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN PLANNING AND CONDUCTING COMMUNITY-BASED Participatory Research. Thirteen: Issues and Choice Points for Improving the Quality of Action Research (Hilary Bradbury and Peter Reason). Broadening the Bandwidth of Validity. Toward a Participatory Worldview. Choice Points for Action Research. Emergent Inquiry Toward Enduring Consequence. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Fourteen: Impacts of CBPR on Academic Researchers, Research Quality and Methodology, and Power Relations (Meredith Minkler and Andrea Corage Baden). Methods. Impacts of CBPR on Methodology and Processes. Impacts on Research Quality. Impacts on Power Relations. Discussion. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Fifteen: Methodological and Ethical Considerations in Community-Driven Environmental Justice Research: Two Case Studies from Rural North Carolina (Stephanie Ann Farquhar and Steve Wing). Eastern North Carolina Snapshot. Case 1: Industrialized Hog Production. Case 2: Discrimination in Disaster Relief. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Sixteen: Analyzing and Interpreting Data with Communities (Suzanne B. Cashman, Alex J. Allen III, Jason Corburn, Barbara A. Israel, Jaime Monta~no, Scott D. Rhodes, Samara F. Swanston, and Eugenia Eng). Case 1: Survey Data from the East Side Village Health Worker Partnership. Case 2.: Focus Group Data from a Latino Men's Soccer League. Case 3: Mapping Data in the Watchperson Project and El Puente. Lessons Learned. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. PART FIVE: USING COMMUNITY-BASED Participatory Research TO PROMOTE SOCIAL CHANGE AND HEALTHY PUBLIC POLICY. Seventeen: The Role of Community-Based Participatory Research in Policy Advocacy (Makani Themba-Nixon, Meredith Minkler, and Nicholas Freudenberg). The Policy-Making Process. Defining and Framing a Policy Goal. Selecting a Policy Approach. Identifying a Target. Support, Power, and Opposition. Policy Process Stages and CBPR Opportunities. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Eighteen: Using CBPR to Promote Environmental Justice Policy: A Case Study from Harlem, New York (Peggy Shepard, Victoria Breckwich Vasquez, and Meredith Minkler). Case Background. Research Methods, Roles, and Findings. Discussion. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Nineteen: Participatory Action Research with Hotel Room Cleaners in San Francisco and Las Vegas: From Collaborative Study to the Bargaining Table (Pam Tau Lee, Niklas Krause, Charles Goetchius, Jo Marie Agresti, and Robin Baker). Theoretical Framework. Research Partners' Roles and Concerns. Defining Topics and Enhancing Participation. Designing and Pilot-Testing the Survey. Selecting the Sample Populations. Planning Outreach and Logistics. Analyzing the Data. Study Findings Translating Findings into Action. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Twenty: Addressing Food Security Through Policy Promoting Store Conversions: The Role of a CBPR Partnership (Victoria Breckwich Vasquez, Dana Lanza, Susana Hennessey Lavery, Shelley Facente, Helen Ann Halpin, and Meredith Minkler). Food Insecurity. The CBPR Partnership. LEJ Partnership's Policy Steps. Local Policy-Related Outcomes. Summary. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. PART SIX: NEXT STEPS AND STRATEGIES FOR THE FUTURE OF COMMUNITY-BASED Participatory Research. Twenty-One: What Predicts Outcomes in Community-Based Participatory Research (Nina Wallerstein, John Oetzel, Bonnie Duran, Greg Tafoya, Lorenda Belone, and Rebecca Rae). Study Background. Literature Search. Assessing Dimensions of Participation and Partnership. Final Model Relationships Between Dimensions. Measurement Issues. Summary and Implications for Future Research. Questions for Discussion. Key Terms. Appendix A: A Protocol for Community-Based Research (Leland Brown and William A. Vega). Appendix B: Federal Funding and Support for Participatory Research in Public Health and Health Care (Shawna L. Mercer and Lawrence W. Green). Appendix C: Reliability-Tested Guidelines for Assessing Participatory Research Projects (Shawna L. Mercer, Lawrence W. Green, Margaret Cargo, Margaret A. Potter, Mark Daniel, R. Scott Olds, and Erika Reed-Gross). Appendix D: Using the Community Tool Box Online Documentation System to Support Participatory Evaluation of Community Health Initiatives (Stephen Fawcett and Jerry Schultz). Appendix E: Making the Best Case for Community-Engaged Scholarship in Promotion and Tenure Review (Sarena D. Seifer). Appendix F: Community Partnership Through a Nursing Lens (Jennifer Averill). Appendix G: Ethical Review of Community-Based Participatory Research: Considerations for Institutional Review Boards (Sarah Flicker, Robb Travers, Adrian Guta, Sean McDonald, and Aileen Meagher). Appendix H: Research Policies, Processes, and Protocol: The Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board (Beverly Becenti-Pigman, Kalvin White, Bea Bowman, Nancy "Lynn" Palmanteer-Holder, and Bonnie Duran). Appendix I: Undoing Racism Training as a Foundation for Team Building in CBPR (Robert E. Aronson, Michael A. Yonas, Nora Jones, Nettie Coad, and Eugenia Eng). Appendix J: Risk Mapping as a Tool for Community-Based Participatory Research and Organizing (Marianne P. Brown). Appendix K: Using CBPR to Promote Policy Change: Exercises and Online Resources (Cassandra Ritas, Meredith Minkler, Angela Ni, and Helen Ann Halpin). Appendix L: Selected Centers and Other Resources for Participatory Research in North America (Meredith Minkler, Nina Wallerstein, Angela Ni, and Rosanna Tran).
-
addressing food security through public policy action in a community based Participatory Research partnership
Health Promotion Practice, 2007Co-Authors: Victoria Breckwich Vasquez, Dana Lanza, Susana Hennesseylavery, Shelley Facente, Helen Ann Halpin, Meredith MinklerAbstract:Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) is an increasingly utilized Research approach that involves the affected community identifying a health-related problem, developing a Research agenda, and planning an appropriate intervention to address the problem. This report on a CBPR partnership in San Francisco's Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood documents the rise of a community food security policy in response to youth-involved Research that found poor access to quality food in an economically disadvantaged area of the city. To analyze the impact of the Research on public policy, a framework of specific steps in the policy-making process is used to organize and better understand the partnership's objectives, activities, strategies, and successes. This community—health department partnership has been able to achieve an innovative and sustainable public policy solution, the Good Neighbor Program, by working closely with policy makers and local businesses to expand community accessibility to healthy food.
Nina Wallerstein - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
engage for equity development of community based Participatory Research tools
Health Education & Behavior, 2020Co-Authors: Myra Parker, Bonnie Duran, Nina Wallerstein, Shannon Sanchezyoungman, Maya Magarati, Ellen Burgess, Blake Boursaw, Amanda Heffernan, Justin Garoutte, Paul KoegelAbstract:We developed a set of four community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) partnership tools aimed at supporting community–academic Research partnerships in strengthening their Research processes, wi...
-
space within the scientific discourse for the voice of the other expressions of community voice in the scientific discourse of community based Participatory Research
Health Communication, 2020Co-Authors: Paul P Chandanabhumma, Bonnie Duran, John G Oetzel, Cynthia R Pearson, Jeffery C Peterson, Mohan J Dutta, Nina WallersteinAbstract:Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) has captured public health attention and support because it is positioned as an approach that involves Researchers and communities as equitable partner...
-
power dynamics in community based Participatory Research a multiple case study analysis of partnering contexts histories and practices
Health Education & Behavior, 2019Co-Authors: Nina Wallerstein, Michael Muhammad, Shannon Sanchezyoungman, Patricia Rodriguez Espinosa, Magdalena Avila, Elizabeth A Baker, Steven Barnett, Lorenda Belone, Maxine Golub, Julie LuceroAbstract:Community-based Participatory Research has a long-term commitment to principles of equity and justice with decades of Research showcasing the added value of power-sharing and Participatory involvem...
-
development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community based Participatory Research
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2018Co-Authors: Julie Lucero, Bonnie Duran, Nina Wallerstein, Barbara A Israel, Maya Magarati, John G Oetzel, Ella Greenemoton, Margarita Alegria, Sarah Kastelic, Cynthia R PearsonAbstract:This article describes a mixed methods study of community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) partnership practices and the links between these practices and changes in health status and disparities outcomes. Directed by a CBPR conceptual model and grounded in indigenous-transformative theory, our nation-wide, cross-site study showcases the value of a mixed methods approach for better understanding the complexity of CBPR partnerships across diverse community and Research contexts. The article then provides examples of how an iterative, integrated approach to our mixed methods analysis yielded enriched understandings of two key constructs of the model: trust and governance. Implications and lessons learned while using mixed methods to study CBPR are provided.
-
community based Participatory Research conceptual model community partner consultation and face validity
Qualitative Health Research, 2016Co-Authors: Lorenda Belone, Bonnie Duran, Elizabeth A Baker, Julie Lucero, Greg Tafoya, Domin Chan, Charlotte Chang, Ella Greenemoton, Michele A Kelley, Nina WallersteinAbstract:A national community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) team developed a conceptual model of CBPR partnerships to understand the contribution of partnership processes to improved community capacity and health outcomes. With the model primarily developed through academic literature and expert consensus building, we sought community input to assess face validity and acceptability. Our Research team conducted semi-structured focus groups with six partnerships nationwide. Participants validated and expanded on existing model constructs and identified new constructs based on “real-world” praxis, resulting in a revised model. Four cross-cutting constructs were identified: trust development, capacity, mutual learning, and power dynamics. By empirically testing the model, we found community face validity and capacity to adapt the model to diverse contexts. We recommend partnerships use and adapt the CBPR model and its constructs, for collective reflection and evaluation, to enhance their partnering practices and...
Bonnie Duran - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
engage for equity development of community based Participatory Research tools
Health Education & Behavior, 2020Co-Authors: Myra Parker, Bonnie Duran, Nina Wallerstein, Shannon Sanchezyoungman, Maya Magarati, Ellen Burgess, Blake Boursaw, Amanda Heffernan, Justin Garoutte, Paul KoegelAbstract:We developed a set of four community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) partnership tools aimed at supporting community–academic Research partnerships in strengthening their Research processes, wi...
-
space within the scientific discourse for the voice of the other expressions of community voice in the scientific discourse of community based Participatory Research
Health Communication, 2020Co-Authors: Paul P Chandanabhumma, Bonnie Duran, John G Oetzel, Cynthia R Pearson, Jeffery C Peterson, Mohan J Dutta, Nina WallersteinAbstract:Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) has captured public health attention and support because it is positioned as an approach that involves Researchers and communities as equitable partner...
-
development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community based Participatory Research
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2018Co-Authors: Julie Lucero, Bonnie Duran, Nina Wallerstein, Barbara A Israel, Maya Magarati, John G Oetzel, Ella Greenemoton, Margarita Alegria, Sarah Kastelic, Cynthia R PearsonAbstract:This article describes a mixed methods study of community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) partnership practices and the links between these practices and changes in health status and disparities outcomes. Directed by a CBPR conceptual model and grounded in indigenous-transformative theory, our nation-wide, cross-site study showcases the value of a mixed methods approach for better understanding the complexity of CBPR partnerships across diverse community and Research contexts. The article then provides examples of how an iterative, integrated approach to our mixed methods analysis yielded enriched understandings of two key constructs of the model: trust and governance. Implications and lessons learned while using mixed methods to study CBPR are provided.
-
community based Participatory Research conceptual model community partner consultation and face validity
Qualitative Health Research, 2016Co-Authors: Lorenda Belone, Bonnie Duran, Elizabeth A Baker, Julie Lucero, Greg Tafoya, Domin Chan, Charlotte Chang, Ella Greenemoton, Michele A Kelley, Nina WallersteinAbstract:A national community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) team developed a conceptual model of CBPR partnerships to understand the contribution of partnership processes to improved community capacity and health outcomes. With the model primarily developed through academic literature and expert consensus building, we sought community input to assess face validity and acceptability. Our Research team conducted semi-structured focus groups with six partnerships nationwide. Participants validated and expanded on existing model constructs and identified new constructs based on “real-world” praxis, resulting in a revised model. Four cross-cutting constructs were identified: trust development, capacity, mutual learning, and power dynamics. By empirically testing the model, we found community face validity and capacity to adapt the model to diverse contexts. We recommend partnerships use and adapt the CBPR model and its constructs, for collective reflection and evaluation, to enhance their partnering practices and...
-
community based Participatory Research conceptual model community partner consultation and face validity
Qualitative Health Research, 2016Co-Authors: Lorenda Belone, Bonnie Duran, Elizabeth A Baker, Julie Lucero, Greg Tafoya, Domin Chan, Charlotte Chang, Ella Greenemoton, Michele A Kelley, Nina WallersteinAbstract:A national community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) team developed a conceptual model of CBPR partnerships to understand the contribution of partnership processes to improved community capacity and health outcomes. With the model primarily developed through academic literature and expert consensus building, we sought community input to assess face validity and acceptability. Our Research team conducted semi-structured focus groups with six partnerships nationwide. Participants validated and expanded on existing model constructs and identified new constructs based on "real-world" praxis, resulting in a revised model. Four cross-cutting constructs were identified: trust development, capacity, mutual learning, and power dynamics. By empirically testing the model, we found community face validity and capacity to adapt the model to diverse contexts. We recommend partnerships use and adapt the CBPR model and its constructs, for collective reflection and evaluation, to enhance their partnering practices and achieve their health and Research goals.
Barbara A Israel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
development of a mixed methods investigation of process and outcomes of community based Participatory Research
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2018Co-Authors: Julie Lucero, Bonnie Duran, Nina Wallerstein, Barbara A Israel, Maya Magarati, John G Oetzel, Ella Greenemoton, Margarita Alegria, Sarah Kastelic, Cynthia R PearsonAbstract:This article describes a mixed methods study of community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) partnership practices and the links between these practices and changes in health status and disparities outcomes. Directed by a CBPR conceptual model and grounded in indigenous-transformative theory, our nation-wide, cross-site study showcases the value of a mixed methods approach for better understanding the complexity of CBPR partnerships across diverse community and Research contexts. The article then provides examples of how an iterative, integrated approach to our mixed methods analysis yielded enriched understandings of two key constructs of the model: trust and governance. Implications and lessons learned while using mixed methods to study CBPR are provided.
-
methods in community based Participatory Research for health
2007Co-Authors: Barbara A Israel, E Eng, Amy J Schulz, Edith A ParkerAbstract:Figures and Tables. Foreword (David Satcher). Acknowledgments. The Editors. The Contributors. PART ONE: INTRODUCTION TO METHODS IN COMMUNITY-BASED Participatory Research FOR HEALTH. 1. Introduction to Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health (Barbara A. Israel, Eugenia Eng, Amy J. Schulz, and Edith A. Parker). PART TWO: PARTNERSHIP FORMATION AND MAINTENANCE. 2. Developing and Maintaining Partnerships with Communities (Nina Wallerstein, Bonnie Duran, Meredith Minkler, and Kevin Foley). 3. Strategies and Techniques for Effective Group Process in CBPR Partnerships (Adam B. Becker, Barbara A. Israel, and Alex J. Allen III). PART THREE: COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND DIAGNOSIS. 4. Insiders and Outsiders Assess Who Is "The Community": Participant Observation, Key Informant Interview, Focus Group Interview, and Community Forum (Eugenia Eng, Karen Strazza Moore, Scott D. Rhodes, Derek M. Griffith, Leo L. Allison, Kate Shirah, and Elvira M. Mebane). PART FOUR: DEFINITION OF THE ISSUE. 5. CBPR Approach to Survey Design and Implementation: The Healthy Environments Partnership Survey (Amy J. Schulz, Shannon N. Zenk, Srimathi Kannan, Barbara A. Israel, Mary A. Koch, and Carmen A. Stokes). 6. Using a CBPR Approach to Develop an Interviewer Training Manual with Members of the Apsaalooke Nation (Suzanne Christopher, Linda Burhansstipanov, and Alma Knows His Gun-McCormick). 7. The Application of Focus Group Methodologies to Community-Based Participatory Research (Edith C. Kieffer, Yamir Salabarria-Pena, Angela M. Odoms-Young, Sharla K. Willis, Kelly E. Baber, and J. Ricardo Guzman). 8. Application of CBPR in the Design of an Observational Tool: The Neighborhood Observational Checklist (Shannon N. Zenk, Amy J. Schulz, James S. House, Alison Benjamin, and Srimathi Kannan). 9. Mapping Social and Environmental Influences on Health: A Community Perspective (Guadalupe X. Ayala, Siobhan C. Maty, Altha J. Cravey, and Lucille H. Webb). 10. Community-Based Participatory Research and Ethnography: The Perfect Union (Chris McQuiston, Emilio A. Parrado, Julio Cesar Olmos-Muniz, and Alejandro M. Bustillo Martinez). 11. What's with the Wheezing? Methods Used by the Seattle-King County Healthy Homes Project to Assess Exposure to Indoor Asthma Triggers (James Krieger, Carol A. Allen, John W. Roberts, Lisa Carol Ross, and Tim K. Takaro). PART FIVE: DOCUMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF PARTNERSHIPS. 12. Documentation and Evaluation of CBPR Partnerships: In-Depth Interviews and Closed-Ended Questionnaires (Barbara A. Israel, Paula M. Lantz, Robert J. McGranaghan, Diana L. Kerr, and J. Ricardo Guzman). PART SIX: FEEDBACK, INTERPRETATION, DISSEMINATION, AND APPLICATION OF RESULTS. 13. Developing and Implementing Guidelines for Dissemination: The Experience of the Community Action Against Asthma Project (Edith A. Parker, Thomas G. Robins, Barbara A. Israel, Wilma Brakefield-Caldwell, Katherine K. Edgren, and Donele J. Wilkins). 14. Creating Understanding and Action Through Group Dialogue (Elizabeth A. Baker and Freda L. Motton). 15. Photovoice as a Community-Based Participatory Research Method: A Case Study with African American Breast Cancer Survivors in Rural Eastern North Carolina (Ellen D. S. Lopez, Eugenia Eng, Naomi Robinson, and Caroline C. Wang). 16. Policy Analysis and Advocacy: An Approach to Community-Based Participatory Research (Nicholas Freudenberg, Marc A. Rogers, Cassandra Ritas, and Sister Mary Nerney). 17. Citizens, Science, and Data Judo: Leveraging Secondary Data Analysis to Build a Community-Academic Collaborative for Environmental Justice in Southern California 371 Rachel Morello-Frosch, Manuel Pastor Jr., James L. Sadd, Carlos Porras, and Michele Prichard APPENDIXES. A. Instructions for Conducting a Force Field Analysis (Adam B. Becker, Barbara A. Israel, and Alex J. Allen III). B. Community Member Key Informant Interview Guide (Eugenia Eng, Karen Strazza Moore, Scott D. Rhodes, Derek M. Griffith, Leo L. Allison, Kate Shirah, and Elvira M. Mebane). C. Selected New and Revised Items Included in the HEP Survey After Input from the Steering Committee or Survey Subcommittee (SC), Focus Group Themes (FG), or Pilot Testing (PT) of Existing Items (Amy J. Schulz, Shannon N. Zenk, Srimathi Kannan, Barbara A. Israel, Mary A. Koch, and Carmen A. Stokes). D. Selected HEP Measures by Survey Categories, with Sources and Scale Items (Amy J. Schulz, Shannon N. Zenk, Srimathi Kannan, Barbara A. Israel, Mary A. Koch, and Carmen A. Stokes). E. Healthy Environments Partnership: Neighborhood Observational Checklist (Shannon N. Zenk, Amy J. Schulz, James S. House, Alison Benjamin, and Srimathi Kannan). F. Field Notes Guide (Chris McQuiston, Emilio A. Parrado, Julio Cesar Olmos, and Alejandro M. Bustillo Martinez). G. Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center: In-Depth, Semistructured Interview Protocol for Board Evaluation, 1996-2002 (Barbara A. Israel, Paula M. Lantz, Robert J. McGranaghan, Diana L. Kerr, and J. Ricardo Guzman). H. Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center: Closed-Ended Survey Questionnaire for Board Evaluation, 1997-2002 (Barbara A. Israel, Paula M. Lantz, Robert J. McGranaghan, Diana L. Kerr, and J. Ricardo Guzman). I. Philosophy and Guiding Principles for Dissemination of Findings of the Michigan Center for the Environment and Children's Health (MCECH) Including Authorship of Publications and Presentations, Policies and Procedures, Access to Data, and Related Matters (Edith A. Parker, Thomas G. Robins, Barbara A. Israel, Wilma Brakefield-Caldwell, Katherine K. Edgren, and Donele J. Wilkins). J. Community Action Against Asthma: Fact Sheet on "Particulate Matter" (Edith A. Parker, Thomas G. Robins, Barbara A. Israel, Wilma Brakefield-Caldwell, Katherine K. Edgren, and Donele J. Wilkins). K. Community Action Against Asthma: Summary of Air Sampling Data in Your Community and Home, 2000-2001 (Edith A. Parker, Thomas G. Robins, Barbara A. Israel, Wilma Brakefield-Caldwell, Katherine K. Edgren, and Donele J. Wilkins). L. The Planning Grant: In-Depth Group Interview Protocol: Questions for Community and Coalition Members (Elizabeth A. Baker and Freda L. Motton). M. Inspirational Images Project: Fact Sheet and Informed Consent Form for Study Participants (Ellen D. S. Lopez, Eugenia Eng, Naomi Robinson, and Caroline C. Wang). N. Inspirational Images Project: Consent for Adults Who May Appear in Photographs (Ellen D. S. Lopez, Eugenia Eng, Naomi Robinson, and Caroline C. Wang). O. Community Reintegration Network: Policy Report-Coming Back to Harlem from Jail or Prison: One-Way or Round-Trip (Nicholas Freudenberg, Marc A. Rogers, Cassandra Ritas, and Sister Mary Nerney). P. Southern California Environmental Justice Collaborative (the Collaborative): Partnership Agreed upon Mechanism for Deciding on Research Activities (Communities for a Better Environment, Liberty Hill Foundation, and The Research Team). Name Index. Subject Index.
-
instrument for evaluating dimensions of group dynamics within community based Participatory Research partnerships
Evaluation and Program Planning, 2003Co-Authors: Amy J Schulz, Barbara A Israel, Paula M LantzAbstract:We describe the development, adaptation, and use of evaluation approaches assessing key dimensions of group partnerships. A review of relevant literature describes the rationale for the evaluation of partnership dynamics, and the selection of relevant dimensions for evaluation and assessment. Three case studies are presented to illustrate the use of this evaluation instrument in community-based Participatory Research partnerships to assess key dimensions of partnership process. The use of evaluation results in self-assessment and partnership development are described and lessons learned in the application of these results are discussed. Finally, we discuss the potential, challenges, and areas for further development of evaluation tools to assess group dynamics in partnership efforts. q 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
community action against asthma examining the partnership process of a community based Participatory Research project
Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2003Co-Authors: Edith A Parker, Barbara A Israel, Melina Williams, Wilma Brakefieldcaldwell, Toby C Lewis, Thomas G Robins, Erminia Ramirez, Zachary Rowe, Gerald J KeelerAbstract:BACKGROUND: Community Action Against Asthma (CAAA) is a community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) project that assesses the effects of outdoor and indoor air quality on exacerbation of asthma in children, and tests household- and neighborhood-level interventions to reduce exposure to environmental asthma triggers. Representatives of community-based organizations, academia, an integrated health system, and the local health department work in partnership on CAAA’s Steering Committee (SC) to design and implement the project.
-
can communities and academia work together on public health Research evaluation results from a community based Participatory Research partnershipin detroit
Journal of Urban Health-bulletin of The New York Academy of Medicine, 2001Co-Authors: Paula M Lantz, Barbara A Israel, Edna Viruellfuentes, Donald Softley, Ricardo GuzmanAbstract:This article reports the results of a formative evaluation of the first 4 years of the Detroit Community-Academic Urban Research Center (URC), a community-based Participatory Research partnership that was founded in 1995 with core funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Several organizations are members of this partnership, including a university, six community-based organizations, a city health department, a health care system, and CDC. The Detroit URC is a strong partnership that has accomplished many of its goals, including the receipt of over $11 million in funding for 12 community-based Participatory Research projects during its initial 4 years. Detroit URC Board members identified a number of facilitating factors for their growth and achievements, such as (1) developing a sound infrastructure and set of processes for making decisions and working together, (2) building trust among partners, (3) garnering committed and active leadership from community partners, and (4) receiving support from CDC. Board members also identified a number of ongoing challenges, including organizational constraints, time pressures, and balancing community interests in interventions and academic Research needs. Overall, the Detroit URC represents a partnership approach to identifying community health concerns and implementing potential solutions.
Salomey Osei - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Participatory Research for low resourced machine translation a case study in african languages
Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2020Co-Authors: Wilhelmina Nekoto, Vukosi Marivate, Tshinondiwa Matsila, Timi Fasubaa, Tajudeen Kolawole, Taiwo Fagbohungbe, Solomon Oluwole Akinola, Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, Salomon Kabongo, Salomey OseiAbstract:Research in NLP lacks geographic diversity, and the question of how NLP can be scaled to low-resourced languages has not yet been adequately solved. "Low-resourced"-ness is a complex problem going beyond data availability and reflects systemic problems in society. In this paper, we focus on the task of Machine Translation (MT), that plays a crucial role for information accessibility and communication worldwide. Despite immense improvements in MT over the past decade, MT is centered around a few high-resourced languages. As MT Researchers cannot solve the problem of low-resourcedness alone, we propose Participatory Research as a means to involve all necessary agents required in the MT development process. We demonstrate the feasibility and scalability of Participatory Research with a case study on MT for African languages. Its implementation leads to a collection of novel translation datasets, MT benchmarks for over 30 languages, with human evaluations for a third of them, and enables participants without formal training to make a unique scientific contribution. Benchmarks, models, data, code, and evaluation results are released under https://github.com/masakhane-io/masakhane-mt.
-
Participatory Research for low resourced machine translation a case study in african languages
arXiv: Computation and Language, 2020Co-Authors: Wilhelmina Nekoto, Vukosi Marivate, Tshinondiwa Matsila, Timi Fasubaa, Tajudeen Kolawole, Taiwo Fagbohungbe, Solomon Oluwole Akinola, Shamsuddeen Hassan Muhammad, Salomon Kabongo, Salomey OseiAbstract:Research in NLP lacks geographic diversity, and the question of how NLP can be scaled to low-resourced languages has not yet been adequately solved. "Low-resourced"-ness is a complex problem going beyond data availability and reflects systemic problems in society. In this paper, we focus on the task of Machine Translation (MT), that plays a crucial role for information accessibility and communication worldwide. Despite immense improvements in MT over the past decade, MT is centered around a few high-resourced languages. As MT Researchers cannot solve the problem of low-resourcedness alone, we propose Participatory Research as a means to involve all necessary agents required in the MT development process. We demonstrate the feasibility and scalability of Participatory Research with a case study on MT for African languages. Its implementation leads to a collection of novel translation datasets, MT benchmarks for over 30 languages, with human evaluations for a third of them, and enables participants without formal training to make a unique scientific contribution. Benchmarks, models, data, code, and evaluation results are released under this https URL.