Clinical Outcome and Neurophysiological Results of Low-Power Laser Irradiation in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

L. Padua,R. Padua,C. Moretti,M. Nazzaro,P. Tonali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s101030050084

1999-09-01

Lasers in Medical Science

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review

Syed M Ahmed,Ann-Gel S Palermo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.178137

Abstract:Community engagement in research may enhance a community's ability to address its own health needs and health disparities issues while ensuring that researchers understand community priorities. However, there are researchers with limited understanding of and experience with effective methods of engaging communities. Furthermore, limited guidance is available for peer-review panels on evaluating proposals for research that engages communities. The National Institutes of Health Director's Council of Public Representatives developed a community engagement framework that includes values, strategies to operationalize each value, and potential outcomes of their use, as well as a peer-review framework for evaluating research that engages communities. Use of these frameworks for educating researchers to create and sustain authentic community-academic partnerships will increase accountability and equality between the partners.
A randomized, prospective trial of stapled lung reduction versus laser bullectomy for diffuse emphysema.

R. J. McKenna,Matthew Brenner,Arthur F. Gelb,Michael Mullin,Narindar Singh,Harold Peters,J. Panzera,Jane Calmese,M. Schein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(96)70440-3

IF: 6.439

1996-02-01

Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Abstract:
Enabling community input to improve equity in and access to translational research: The Community Coalition for Equity in Research

Michael Curry,Albert Pless,Shoba Ramanadhan,Carolina Trujillo,Karen Emmons,Rebekka M Lee,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2022.396

2022-04-29

Journal of Clinical and Translational Science

Abstract:Background: The COVID vaccine trials illustrated the critical need for the development of mechanisms to serve as a bridge between least advantaged communities and researchers. Such mechanisms would increase the number of studies that are designed with community needs and interests in mind, in ways that will close gaps rather than widen them. This paper reports on the creation of the Community Coalition for Equity in Research, a community-driven resource designed to build community capacity to provide researchers with credible and actionable input on study design and implementation and increase researchers' understanding of factors that influence community support of research.Methods and Results: We provide a description of the Coalition's structure and process and an evaluation of its first year of operation. Researchers rated their experience very positively and reported that the Coalition's review will improve their research. Coalition members reported high levels of satisfaction with their participation and the processes set up for them to engage with researchers. Members also largely agreed that their participation has value for their community, and that it has increased their interest in research and the likelihood that they would recommend research participation to others.Conclusions: The Coalition represents a model for increasing two-way engagement between researchers and the larger community. We are optimistic that the Coalition will continue to develop and grow into a vibrant entity that will bring value to both investigators and our local communities and will increase the consideration of equity as a foundational principle in all translational research.

English Else
How i do it: Head and neck and plastic surgery: False vocal cord reconstruction of the glottis following vertical partial laryngectomy: A preliminary analysis

D. Brasnu,O. Laccourreye,G. Weinstein,I. Fligny,E. Chabardes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-199206000-00021

IF: 2.97

1992-06-01

The Laryngoscope

Abstract:
Abstract PR010: Evaluating a bidirectional academic–community partnership with multiple racial/ethnic communities for cancer prevention initiatives and cancer health disparities research

Lin Zhu,Ellen J. Kim,Steven Zhu,Nathaly Rubio-Torio,Evelyn González,Marilyn A. Fraser,Ming-chin Yeh,Marsha Zibalese-Crawford,Grace X. Ma,Olorunseun O. Ogunwobi,Yin Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-pr010

2023-01-11

Abstract:Background: The Temple University Fox Chase Cancer Center and Hunter College Cancer Health Disparity Partnership (TUFCCC/HC Cancer Partnership) is a comprehensive collaborative cancer health research infrastructure in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York City (PNN) Region. Its goals are to enhance equity in cancer health through rigorous and sustainable cancer research, train the next generation of researchers, and establish community outreach programs. Establishing and strengthening a bidirectional academic-community partnership is a key component of this partnership. While such collaborative relationships have been strongly endorsed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), little has been documented demonstrating how such partnership can be created and maintained. Objectives: Building on previous established collaborative relationships with the community-based organizations (CBOs), we created and expanded a bidirectional, academic–community partnership in African American, Asian American, and Latinx communities in the PNN region to (1) assess the level of awareness of cancer prevention knowledge; (2) identify community needs and barriers to cancer prevention healthcare services; (3) jointly develop and implement community-based educational initiatives to promote cancer prevention in medically underserved communities. Methods: In this presentation, we established a comprehensive evaluation metric to assess the bidirectional partnership. The metric, its outputs, and outcomes were adapted from the Evaluation Metrics Manual published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Services of NIH. We also formed a Community Advisory Board (CAB) to guide our bidirectional communication and jointly develop a community-driven cancer education agenda. Results: The CAB played a critical role in the development of the bidirectional partnership. They provided key inputs in identifying the goals and benchmarks of the educational initiative, and in facilitating the recruitment and implementation of the initiative. Our evaluation indicated that a bidirectional partnership is an interactive and non-linear process that requires constant feedback and communication. We identified several successes and challenges during our co-learning and co-implementing process. We also identified areas for improvement, specifically, establishing a more efficient channel for information and resource sharing, and greater efforts on dissemination of scientific findings to the community. Conclusions: Actively engaging CAB and CBOs in the cancer prevention educational initiatives from the onset enhanced the efficacy of the initiatives and strengthened the research training capacity of the academic institutions. We will share best practices in our bidirectional, academic–community partnership building and discuss next steps in adaptation and further development of the partnership. Citation Format: Lin Zhu, Ellen J. Kim, Steven Zhu, Nathaly Rubio-Torio, Evelyn González, Marilyn A. Fraser, Ming-chin Yeh, Marsha Zibalese-Crawford, Grace X. Ma, Olorunseun O. Ogunwobi, Yin Tan. Evaluating a bidirectional academic–community partnership with multiple racial/ethnic communities for cancer prevention initiatives and cancer health disparities research [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl) nr PR010.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
Community-engaged pedagogy: a strengths-based approach to involving diverse stakeholders in research partnerships

Carolyn Leung Rubin,Linda Sprague Martinez,Jocelyn Chu,Karen Hacker,Doug Brugge,Alex Pirie,Nathan Allukian,Angie Mae Rodday,Laurel K Leslie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2012.0057

Abstract:Background: To help build community capacity to partner in translational research partnerships, new approaches to training that incorporate both adult learning models and community-based participatory research (CBPR) are needed. Objectives: This article describes the educational approach-"community-engaged pedagogy"-used in a capacity-building training program with community partners in Boston. Drawing from adult learning theory and CBPR community-engaged pedagogy embraces co-learning and is rooted in a deep respect for the prior knowledge and experiences that community partners bring to the conversation around CBPR. This approach developed iteratively over the course of the first year of the program. Participating community partners drove the development of this educational approach, as they requested the application of CBPR principles to the educational program. Methods: The dimensions of community-engaged pedagogy include (1) a relational approach to partnership building, (2) establishment of a learning community, (3) organic curriculum model, (4) collaborative teaching mechanism with diverse faculty, and (5) applied learning. Conclusions: Using a community-engaged pedagogical approach helps to model respect, reciprocity, and power sharing, core principles of CBPR. Although community partners appreciate this approach, traditionally trained academics may find this method unfamiliar and uncomfortable.
Perspectives of Community Co-Researchers About Group Dynamics and Equitable Partnership Within a Community–Academic Research Team

Lisa M. Vaughn,Farrah Jacquez,Jenny Zhen-Duan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198118769374

2018-04-04

Abstract:Equitable partnership processes and group dynamics, including individual, relational, and structural factors, have been identified as key ingredients to successful community-based participatory research partnerships. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the key aspects of group dynamics and partnership from the perspectives of community members serving as co-researchers. Semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 Latino immigrant co-researchers from an intervention project with Latinos Unidos por la Salud (LU-Salud), a community research team composed of Latino immigrant community members and academic investigators working in a health research partnership. A deductive framework approach guided the interview process and qualitative data analysis. The LU-Salud co-researchers described relationships, personal growth, beliefs/identity motivation (individual dynamics), coexistence (relational dynamics), diversity, and power/resource sharing (structural dynamics) as key foundational aspects of the community–academic partnership. Building on existing CBPR and team science frameworks, these findings demonstrate that group dynamics and partnership processes are fundamental drivers of individual-level motivation and meaning making, which ultimately sustain efforts of community partners to engage with the research team and also contribute to the achievement of intended research outcomes.

public, environmental & occupational health
Promoting health equity in HIV prevention and treatment research: a practical guide to establishing, implementing, and sustaining community advisory boards

Elliott R. Weinstein,Christian M. Herrera,Lorenzo Pla Serrano,Edward Martí Kring,Audrey Harkness

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20499361231151508

2023-01-01

Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease

Abstract:Over the last 25 years, community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged as an innovative methodological approach to break down the barriers toward health equity in biopsychosocial research. Although there are several methods one can use to conduct CBPR research, one widely used established tool that has shown to be effective for engaging community meaningfully in research is community advisory boards (CABs). CABs are formalized collaborative bodies consisting of community and research stakeholders and have been integral in engaging underserved groups experiencing HIV-related health inequities at the early stages of the AIDS crisis. Even though evidence suggests that CABs are an effective tool for conducting high-quality, rigorous, and community-centered HIV-related research, there are minimal guidelines summarizing the steps needed for developing and maintaining a CAB. Therefore, to fill this gap in the literature, this article offers a practical guide to help researchers with minimal experience, particularly graduate students and early-stage investigators, feel more comfortable with establishing a CAB for equity-focused HIV-related research. This article synthesizes already established guidelines and frameworks for CAB development while specifically outlining unique steps related to the three main stages of CAB formation – establishment, implementation, and sustainment. Throughout this article, the authors offer tension points, generated from the literature and with consultation from a CAB working alongside the authors, that researchers and community partners may need to navigate during each of these three stages. In addition, best practices from the literature are identified for each step in the guidelines so that readers can see firsthand how research groups have carried out these steps in their own practice.
Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis

Katrina M Plamondon,Jenna Dixon,Ben Brisbois,Rodrigo Curty Pereira,Elijah Bisung,Susan J Elliott,Ian D Graham,Sume Ndumbe-Eyoh,Stephanie Nixon,Sana Shahram

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15709-5

IF: 4.5

2023-05-15

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Background: Collective agreement about the importance of centering equity in health research, practice, and policy is growing. Yet, responsibility for advancing equity is often situated as belonging to a vague group of 'others', or delegated to the leadership of 'equity-seeking' or 'equity-deserving' groups who are tasked to lead systems transformation while simultaneously navigating the violence and harms of oppression within those same systems. Equity efforts also often overlook the breadth of equity scholarship. Harnessing the potential of current interests in advancing equity requires systematic, evidence-guided, theoretically rigorous ways for people to embrace their own agency and influence over the systems in which they are situated. ln this article, we introduce and describe the Systematic Equity Action-Analysis (SEA) Framework as a tool that translates equity scholarship and evidence into a structured process that leaders, teams, and communities can use to advance equity in their own settings. Methods: This framework was derived through a dialogic, critically reflective and scholarly process of integrating methodological insights garnered over years of equity-centred research and practice. Each author, in a variety of ways, brought engaged equity perspectives to the dialogue, bringing practical and lived experience to conversation and writing. Our scholarly dialogue was grounded in critical and relational lenses, and involved synthesis of theory and practice from a broad range of applications and cases. Results: The SEA Framework balances practices of agency, humility, critically reflective dialogue, and systems thinking. The framework guides users through four elements of analysis (worldview, coherence, potential, and accountability) to systematically interrogate how and where equity is integrated in a setting or object of action-analysis. Because equity issues are present in virtually all aspects of society, the kinds of 'things' the framework could be applied to is only limited by the imagination of its users. It can inform retrospective or prospective work, by groups external to a policy or practice setting (e.g., using public documents to assess a research funding policy landscape); or internal to a system, policy, or practice setting (e.g., faculty engaging in a critically reflective examination of equity in the undergraduate program they deliver). Conclusions: While not a panacea, this unique contribution to the science of health equity equips people to explicitly recognize and interrupt their own entanglements in the intersecting systems of oppression and injustice that produce and uphold inequities.
Are We the Problem? A Call to Action for Addressing Institutional Challenges to Engaging Community Partners in Research

Neha Hippalgaonkar,Ryan Huu-Tuan Nguyen,Eliza Brumer Cohn,Joseph Horowitz,Ana Williams Waite,Tigist Mersha,Christen Sandoval,Sarah Khan,Kauthar Salum,Paris Thomas,Anne Marie Murphy,Beulah Brent,Lolita Coleman,Paramjeet Khosla,Kent F. Hoskins,Vida Henderson,Leslie R. Carnahan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21020236

IF: 4.614

2024-02-17

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:Community-engaged research (CEnR) is a potent tool for addressing health inequities and fostering equitable relationships among communities, researchers, and institutions. CEnR involves collaboration throughout the research process, demonstrating improvements in study recruitment and retention, intervention efficacy, program sustainability, capacity building among partners, and enhanced cultural relevance. Despite the increasing demand for CEnR, institutional policies, particularly human participation protection training (HPP), lag behind, creating institutional barriers to community partnerships. Here, we highlight challenges encountered in our ongoing study, Fostering Opportunities in Research through Messaging and Education (FOR ME), focused on promoting shared decision-making around clinical trial participation among Black women diagnosed with breast cancer. Grounded in CEnR methods, FOR ME has a partnership with a community-based organization (CBO) that addresses the needs of Black women with breast cancer. Our CBO partner attempted to obtain HPP training, which was administratively burdensome and time-consuming. As CEnR becomes more prevalent, academic and research institutions, along with researchers, are faced with a call to action to become more responsive to community partner needs. Accordingly, we present a guide to HPP training for community partners, addressing institutional barriers to community partner participation in research. This guide outlines multiple HPP training pathways for community partners, aiming to minimize institutional barriers and enhance their engagement in research with academic partners.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences
Open access endoscopy in rural and remote Western Australia: Does it work?

W. Hughes‐Anderson,Sarah L. Rankin,J. House,James Aitken,D. Heath,A. House

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/J.1445-2197.2002.02535.X

IF: 1.7

2002-10-01

ANZ Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Background: Access to diagnostic endoscopy is limited in rural and remote Western Australia. Published reports suggest open access referrals may result in over‐servicing, this is reduced by adherence to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines.The aim was to assess whether an out reach surgical service offering open access endoscopy to rural areas was being over utilized.
Engaging people with lived experiences on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review protocol

Georgia Nelson,Hasan Kettaneh,Bruce Knox,Eva Purkey,Sophy Chan-Nguyen,Meghan Jenkins,Imaan Bayoumi,Nelson,G.,Kettaneh,H.,Knox,B.,Purkey,E.,Chan-Nguyen,S.,Jenkins,M.,Bayoumi,I.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078479

IF: 3.006

2024-03-10

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative research approach that equally engages researchers and community stakeholders throughout all steps of the research process to facilitate social change and increase research relevance. Community advisory boards (CABs) are a CBPR tool in which individuals with lived experience and community organisations are integrated into the research process and ensure the work aligns with community priorities. We seek to (1) explore the best practices for the recruitment and engagement of people with lived experiences on CABs and (2) identify the scope of literature on minimising power dynamics between organisations and community members with lived experience who work on CABs together. Methods and analysis This scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, informed by Levac et al , and will be reported using a PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) diagram. Detailed and robust search strategies have been developed for Embase, Medline and PsychINFO. Grey literature references and reference lists of included articles published between 1 January 1990 and 30 March 2023 will be considered. Two reviewers will independently screen references in two successive stages of title/abstract and full-text screening. Conflicts will be decided by consensus or a third reviewer. Thematic analysis will be applied in three phases: open coding, axial coding and abstraction. Extracted data will be recorded and presented in a tabular format and/or graphical summaries, with a descriptive overview discussing how the research findings relate to the research questions. At this time, a preliminary search of peer-reviewed and grey literature has been conducted. Search results for peer-reviewed literature have been uploaded to Covidence for review and appraisal for relevance. Ethics and dissemination Formal ethics approval is not required for this review. Review findings will inform ongoing and future CBPR community advisory board dynamics. Registration The protocol has been registered prospectively on the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QF5D3)

medicine, general & internal
Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Pre-Elafin in Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Acute Lung Inflammation

E. Vachon,Y. Bourbonnais,C. Bingle,S. J. Rowe,M. Janelle,G. Tremblay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/BC.2002.138

2002-01-27

Biological Chemistry

Abstract:Abstract The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antiinflammatory activity of preelafin, an elastasespecific inhibitor, in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)induced acute lung inflammation. C57BL/6 mice were pretreated intranasally with recombinant human preelafin or vehicle only. One hour later, they were instilled intranasally with LPS (2 g/mouse). Animals were sacrificed 6 hours after LPS instillation and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was performed with three 1- ml aliquots of saline. LPS induced a lung inflammation characterised by a 100-fold increase in BAL neutrophils compared to control animals (265.8±54.5 103 and 2.4±1.3 103 neutrophils/ml, respectively). Preelafin dosedependently reduced the neutrophil influx in the lung alveolar spaces by up to 84%. No elastase activity was detectable in all BAL fluids tested. Preelafin also reduced significantly LPSinduced gelatinase activity, as shown by zymography, and BAL macrophage inflammatory protein-2 (MIP-2) and KC levels, two potent neutrophil attractants and activators. Moreover, preelafin also significantly reduced mRNA levels of the three members of the IL-1 ligand family, namely IL-1α, IL-1β and IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra), type II IL-1 receptor, and TNFα as assessed in whole lung tissue by RNase protection assay. Thus, preelafin may be considered as a potent antiinflammatory mediator.
Building Leadership, Capacity, and Power to Advance Health Equity and Justice through Community-Engaged Research in the Midwest

Briana Woods-Jaeger,Jason Daniel-Ulloa,Lauren Kleven,Rebecca Bucklin,Adriana Maldonado,Paul A Gilbert,Edith A Parker,Barbara Baquero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12462

Abstract:The Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL) at the University of Iowa College of Public Health began in 2012 to support students, researchers, and community members interested in tackling persistent health inequities through a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach. Using concepts from critical consciousness theory, we developed an approach to building students', faculty members', and community partners' capacity to engage in CBPR to promote health equity that involved immersion in developing CBPR projects. Our paper describes the evolution of HEAL as a facilitating structure that provides a support network and engages diverse stakeholders in critical reflection as they participate in research to advance health equity, and resulting political efficacy and social action. We describe one HEAL-affiliated research project that employs a CBPR approach and has a strong focus on providing transformative learning experiences for students, faculty, and community members. We highlight challenges, successes, and lessons learned in the application of critical consciousness as a framework that engages diverse academic and community partners seeking to promote health equity. We argue that critical consciousness is a relevant theoretical framework to promote transformative learning among students, faculty, and community partners to promote health equity research in diverse communities.
Aligning the goals of community-engaged research: why and how academic health centers can successfully engage with communities to improve health

Lloyd Michener,Jennifer Cook,Syed M Ahmed,Michael A Yonas,Tamera Coyne-Beasley,Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182441680

Abstract:Community engagement (CE) and community-engaged research (CEnR) are increasingly viewed as the keystone to translational medicine and improving the health of the nation. In this article, the authors seek to assist academic health centers (AHCs) in learning how to better engage with their communities and build a CEnR agenda by suggesting five steps: defining community and identifying partners, learning the etiquette of CE, building a sustainable network of CEnR researchers, recognizing that CEnR will require the development of new methodologies, and improving translation and dissemination plans. Health disparities that lead to uneven access to and quality of care as well as high costs will persist without a CEnR agenda that finds answers to both medical and public health questions. One of the biggest barriers toward a national CEnR agenda, however, are the historical structures and processes of an AHC-including the complexities of how institutional review boards operate, accounting practices and indirect funding policies, and tenure and promotion paths. Changing institutional culture starts with the leadership and commitment of top decision makers in an institution. By aligning the motivations and goals of their researchers, clinicians, and community members into a vision of a healthier population, AHC leadership will not just improve their own institutions but also improve the health of the nation-starting with improving the health of their local communities, one community at a time.
Building Sustainable Organizational and Community Capacity for Research Partnerships: A Decade of Experience

Al Castro,Sarah Esmond,Shary Perez,Caitlin Scott,Tyson Jackson,Susan Racine Passmore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2021.0045

Abstract:The purpose of this article is to share community partner perspectives of impact and lessons learned from a decade long community-academic partnership between the Collaborative Center for Health Equity at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the United Community Center/Centro de la Comunidad Unida, a nonprofit community-based organization providing services across the lifespan for Latino communities of Milwaukee. The partnership was established in 2010 to support bidirectional communication, trust building and mutual benefit though community engaged research and collaborative student teaching. Over the years, we have achieved a variety of outcomes on both sides of the partnership. For our community organization, the partnership has evolved to create substantial benefits through opportunities for new collaborations, service program development and grantsmanship. Several factors contributed to our success including sustained stable funding not tied to an individual research project and academic investment in community capacity.
II. Injury as a Causative Factor in Cancer (Continued).

W. Coley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-191105000-00002

IF: 13.787

1911-05-01

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:
Hypertrophied non-failing rat heart; partial biochemical characterization.

C. Dart,J. Holloszy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/01.RES.25.3.245

IF: 23.213

1969-09-01

Circulation Research

Abstract:Cardiac hypertrophy was induced in rats by constructing an arteriovenous fistula. Heart weights approximately doubled in 7.5 weeks. The levels of activity, expressed per gram of heart, of a variety of enzymes of the mitochondrial respiratory chain and of the citric acid cycle, as well as the concentrations of cytochrome c and of mitochondrial protein, were the same in the hypertrophied and control hearts. Similarly, the capacity of whole heart homogenate to oxidize pyruvate was unaltered in hypertrophy. There was also no change in the levels of activity of cytochrome oxidase and malate dehydrogenase, or in the concentration of cytochrome c in early hypertrophy (3 to 10 days after construction of an A-V fistula). These results suggest that cardiac mitochondria increase in parallel with the other components of the myocardial cell. The levels of activity, per gram of heart, of creatine phosphokinase and adenylate kinase, and of the rate-limiting enzymes of glycolysis and glycogenolysis, were the same in the ...
Engaging Community–Academic Partnerships: A Case Study of the Influence of Social Drivers of Health on Equitable Transitions of Cancer Care in the United States

Lailea Noel,Catherine Cubbin,Shetal Vohra-Gupta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020264

2024-01-20

Health Care

Abstract:Enduring community–academic partnerships are essential for expediting the successful dissemination and implementation of promising interventions and programs, particularly for complex public health issues such as cancer prevention and control. The purpose of this case study was to understand the combined voices of a diverse group of stakeholders to outline the essential factors needed to translate research into sustainable cancer care within communities. System dynamics group model building was used to develop system maps of the factors impacting equitable access to cancer care services among three stakeholder groups (Group A: survivors and family members, n = 20; Group B: providers and administrators in community agencies/organizations, n = 40; Group C: administrators from a cancer institute, academic universities, foundations, and healthcare facilities that coordinate care, n = 25) in central Texas, USA. The lead researcher identified factors involved in transitions of care and their linkages with each other. The analysis of this work displays these connections visually. These models represent the ripple effect of factors influencing the transition of care for stakeholders who are invested in cancer care outcomes. All three groups identified medical mistrust, a culturally sensitive and diverse provider workforce, and care coordination as three essential factors (i.e., themes). Group A also identified caregiver navigation. The groups varied in their emphasis on upstream vs. downstream social drivers of health, with Group B emphasizing the former and Group C emphasizing the latter. To achieve cancer care equity, all stakeholder groups agreed on the importance of addressing the impact of social drivers as critical gaps. Eliminating or reducing these impacts allows each stakeholder group to work more efficiently and effectively to improve cancer care for patients.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Creating a Culture of Empowerment in Research: Findings from a Capacity-Building Training Program

Carolyn Leung Rubin,Linda Sprague Martinez,Lisa Tse,Doug Brugge,Karen Hacker,Alex Pirie,Laurel K Leslie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2016.0054

Abstract:Background: This paper uses a theory from educational research - "the culture of power" - to explore power differentials between academic researchers and community partners in community engaged research partnership programs. Objectives: This paper describes how a capacity-building program illuminated the tensions between academics and community partners related to power differentials and offers strategies for how to balance the power dynamic. Methods: This paper relies on semi-structured interviews from 30 community partners who participated in the "Building your capacity" program. Results: The framework of "culture of power" applied to research relationships helps us understand the following: (1) The power differentials between academic institutions and community agencies are deeply entrenched. That is there is a "culture of power." (2) This culture of power is often reinforced through the cultural rules and dominant language of the academy. (3) Academic institutions, by and large, have created and perpetuated the rules that have led to these uneven power relationships. (4) Being told explicitly about the rules of academic culture make acquiring power easier for community partners. (5) Community partners are often more aware of the culture of power in research and more willing to acknowledge these differentials than academic researchers. Conclusions: Academic partners who want to work with community partners need to acknowledge these power imbalances and be intentional about shifting these power dynamics. Capacity-building programs can help to shift these power imbalances because they help community partners acquire the confidence, knowledge and skills to advocate for more equitable research relationships.

Clinical Outcome and Neurophysiological Results of Low-Power Laser Irradiation in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Community engagement in research: frameworks for education and peer review

A randomized, prospective trial of stapled lung reduction versus laser bullectomy for diffuse emphysema.

Enabling community input to improve equity in and access to translational research: The Community Coalition for Equity in Research

How i do it: Head and neck and plastic surgery: False vocal cord reconstruction of the glottis following vertical partial laryngectomy: A preliminary analysis

Abstract PR010: Evaluating a bidirectional academic–community partnership with multiple racial/ethnic communities for cancer prevention initiatives and cancer health disparities research

Community-engaged pedagogy: a strengths-based approach to involving diverse stakeholders in research partnerships

Perspectives of Community Co-Researchers About Group Dynamics and Equitable Partnership Within a Community–Academic Research Team

Promoting health equity in HIV prevention and treatment research: a practical guide to establishing, implementing, and sustaining community advisory boards

Turning the tide on inequity through systematic equity action-analysis

Are We the Problem? A Call to Action for Addressing Institutional Challenges to Engaging Community Partners in Research

Open access endoscopy in rural and remote Western Australia: Does it work?

Engaging people with lived experiences on community advisory boards in community-based participatory research: a scoping review protocol

Anti-Inflammatory Effect of Pre-Elafin in Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Acute Lung Inflammation

Building Leadership, Capacity, and Power to Advance Health Equity and Justice through Community-Engaged Research in the Midwest

Aligning the goals of community-engaged research: why and how academic health centers can successfully engage with communities to improve health

Building Sustainable Organizational and Community Capacity for Research Partnerships: A Decade of Experience

II. Injury as a Causative Factor in Cancer (Continued).

Hypertrophied non-failing rat heart; partial biochemical characterization.

Engaging Community–Academic Partnerships: A Case Study of the Influence of Social Drivers of Health on Equitable Transitions of Cancer Care in the United States

Creating a Culture of Empowerment in Research: Findings from a Capacity-Building Training Program