Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In the Boston metropolitan area, three CTSA sites, Tufts University, Harvard University, and Boston University, prioritized working with each other and with community partners Action Steps To facilitate their collaboration, the three sites took advantage of the CTSA program’s Community Engagement Consultative Service, bringing two consultants to Boston to share insights about forming institutional partnerships in an urban area Bernadette Boden-Albala from Columbia University in New York City and Jen Kauper-Brown from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, visited Boston on separate occasions and shared their experiences in bringing together CTSA sites and community partners in their areas These visits helped to facilitate conversation among the three CTSAs about how to work together for the mutual benefit of the community At the same time, the CTSAs each were having conversations with their community partners about the need to build capacity for research in the community When a funding opportunity arose through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the three CTSAs, along with two critical community partners, the Center for Community Health Education Research and Services and the Immigrant Services Providers Group/Health, decided to collaboratively develop a training program to build research capacity Of the 35 organizations that applied for the first round of funding, 10 were selected in January 2010 to make up the first cohort of community research fellows These fellows underwent a five-month training course that included such topics as policy, ethics, research design, the formulation of questions, and methods The community organizations represented in the training varied in size, geographic location, and the types of “communities” served (e g , disease-specific advocacy organizations, immigration groups, and public housing advocacy groups specific to certain geographic boundaries) The program used a “community-centered” approach in its design, feedback about each session was rapidly cycled back into future sessions, and learning was shared between community and academic researchers The first cohort concluded its work in 2010 Outcomes and insights from the project will feed the next round of training 147
Although the CTSA sites in the Boston area were already committed to working together, bringing in consultants with experience in working across academic institutions helped them think through a process and learn from other regions’ experiences The consultants affirmed that, by working together, academic medical centers can better serve the needs of their mutual community rather than the individual needs of the institutions This was echoed by participants in the capacity-building program described above One clear response from participants was their appreciation that the three academic institutions partnered to work with communities rather than splintering their efforts and asking community groups to align with one institution or another Take-Home Messages • Research training programs need to model multidirectional knowledge exchange; the knowledge of community members must be valued and embedded into the curriculum alongside academic knowledge • Transparency, honesty, and sharing of resources (fiscal and human) among academic institutions and community groups are crucial to building trust • Academic institutions can and should work together on the common mission of serving their communities Outside consultants can help facilitate multi-institutional collaboration CONCLUSION The vignettes presented here illustrate key challenges in CEnR and provide examples of how partnerships have dealt with them Ultimately, what underpins the solutions presented here are the same ideals encapsulated in the principles of community engagement — clarity of purpose, willingness to learn, time, understanding differences, building trust, communication, sharing of control, respect, capacity building, partnership, and commitment 148
Page 1 and 2:
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS CTSA Community En
Page 5 and 6:
Editorial and Research Staff Mina S
Page 7 and 8:
For further information on the CTSA
Page 9 and 10:
FOREWORD As Surgeon General, I am p
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary
Page 13 and 14:
of Veterans Affairs, and other fede
Page 15 and 16:
REFERENCES Ahmed SM, Palermo AG Com
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1 Community Engagement: Def
Page 19 and 20:
clinics, agencies, after-school pro
Page 21 and 22:
The eligibility criteria that scien
Page 23 and 24:
2 Design and delivery—Improvement
Page 25 and 26:
There is no question that culture a
Page 27 and 28:
oot causes of problems while at the
Page 29 and 30:
• Know the community, its constit
Page 31 and 32:
• Coalitions require that each pa
Page 33 and 34:
studies demonstrate that IRBs gener
Page 35 and 36:
action at those levels This approac
Page 37 and 38:
• S o c i e t y : Advocate for th
Page 39 and 40:
According to Rogers, the characteri
Page 41 and 42:
is the added value of CBPR to the r
Page 43 and 44:
• It is important to understand c
Page 45 and 46:
Butterfoss FD, Kegler MC (2002) Tow
Page 47 and 48:
Flicker S, Travers R, Guta A, McDon
Page 49 and 50:
Jones MR, Horner RD, Edwards LJ, Ho
Page 51 and 52:
Minkler M Community organizing and
Page 53 and 54:
Shore N Community-based participato
Page 55 and 56:
Yale Center for Clinical Investigat
Page 57 and 58:
Chapter 2 Principles of Community E
Page 59 and 60:
• Ask community members to specif
Page 61 and 62:
trust for a true partnership Such m
Page 63 and 64:
that affect health and health dispa
Page 65 and 66:
difference in the health of the pop
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 3 Successful Examples in th
Page 69 and 70:
59 TABLE 3.1. MATRIX OF CASE EXAMPL
Page 71 and 72:
a mission statement written in the
Page 73 and 74:
2. HEALTH-E-AME Background: The Med
Page 75 and 76:
3. PROJECT SUGAR Background: Gullah
Page 77 and 78:
Websites http://academicdepartments
Page 79 and 80:
of the community context, developme
Page 81 and 82:
5. HEALING OF THE CANOE Background:
Page 83 and 84:
6. FORMANDO NUESTRO FUTURO/SHAPING
Page 85 and 86:
7. IMPROVING AMERICAN INDIAN CANCER
Page 87 and 88:
and the mistreatment of some Americ
Page 89 and 90:
access to resources for healthy eat
Page 91 and 92:
9. THE DENTAL PRACTICE-BASED RESEAR
Page 93 and 94:
10. DIABETES EDUCATION & PREVENTION
Page 95 and 96:
11. PROJECT DULCE Background: Diabe
Page 97 and 98:
References Gilmer TP, Philis-Tsimik
Page 99 and 100:
milestones in child development, ch
Page 101 and 102:
Chapter 4 Managing Organizational S
Page 103 and 104: engagement is not limited to coalit
Page 105 and 106: Practice Element 1: Know the Commun
Page 107 and 108: each capacity component for this pr
Page 109 and 110: REFERENCES Butterfoss FD. Coalition
Page 111 and 112: Table 4.1. Know the Community, Its
Page 113 and 114: Table 4.3. Build and Sustain Networ
Page 115 and 116: Challenges in Improving Community E
Page 117 and 118: ecommended public health practices
Page 119 and 120: community setting can be just as ri
Page 121 and 122: These challenges do not compare, ho
Page 123 and 124: halted its efforts to collect data
Page 125 and 126: mechanisms for communication, the c
Page 127 and 128: The researchers and the community b
Page 129 and 130: Horn K, McGloin T, Dino G, Manzo K,
Page 131 and 132: Take-Home Messages • Be explicit
Page 133 and 134: At meetings of the CAB, decisions w
Page 135 and 136: 3. WORKING WITH NONTRADITIONAL COMM
Page 137 and 138: B. How do you engage a state as a c
Page 139 and 140: to those applying for funds The eva
Page 141 and 142: 4. INITIATING A PROJECT WITH A COMM
Page 143 and 144: B. How do you set up and maintain a
Page 145 and 146: References Blumenthal DS A communit
Page 147 and 148: parties grew frustrated The partner
Page 149 and 150: 5. O VERCOMING COMPETING PRIORITIES
Page 151 and 152: Reference Reifsnider E, Hargraves M
Page 153: Take-Home Messages • “Splitting
Page 157 and 158: Chapter 6 The Value of Social Netwo
Page 159 and 160: Social networks can also play an im
Page 161 and 162: engagement effort, relationships mu
Page 163 and 164: engagement Furthermore, social medi
Page 165 and 166: REFERENCES Arthur T The role of soc
Page 167 and 168: Program Evaluation and Evaluating C
Page 169 and 170: approaches to evaluation that are p
Page 171 and 172: Several institutions have identifie
Page 173 and 174: Planning Defining and identifying s
Page 175 and 176: Once the positive outcome of a prog
Page 177 and 178: The major goal of empowerment evalu
Page 179 and 180: Table 7.1. Types of Evaluation Ques
Page 181 and 182: The evaluation of community engagem
Page 183 and 184: for understanding a community and i
Page 185 and 186: REFERENCES Anderson RM, Funnell MM,
Page 187 and 188: Patton MQ Qualitative evaluation an
Page 189 and 190: Chapter 8 Summary Donna Jo McCloske
Page 191 and 192: • Know the extent to which the fo
Page 193 and 194: Appendix A: Acronyms
Page 195 and 196: CDC Centers for Disease Control and
Page 197: NIH Publication No. 11-7782
show all

Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?