Evaluation of a peer-led research best practices training for community health workers and promotoras.

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2024-09-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2024.593
Susan L Murphy, Alexandra E Harper, Gina M Jay, Vanessa I Trujillo, Kristen Weeks-Norton, Elias Samuels, Jonathan P Troost, Brenda Eakin, Gretchen Piatt, Catherine Striley, Analay Perez, Shannen McIntosh, Daphne C Watkins, Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, Linda Cottler
{"title":"Evaluation of a peer-led research best practices training for community health workers and promotoras.","authors":"Susan L Murphy, Alexandra E Harper, Gina M Jay, Vanessa I Trujillo, Kristen Weeks-Norton, Elias Samuels, Jonathan P Troost, Brenda Eakin, Gretchen Piatt, Catherine Striley, Analay Perez, Shannen McIntosh, Daphne C Watkins, Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola, Linda Cottler","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Community health workers and promotoras (CHW/Ps) increasingly support research conducted in communities but receive variable or no training. We developed a culturally and linguistically tailored research best practices course for CHW/Ps that can be taken independently or in facilitated groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the facilitated training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CHW/Ps were recruited from communities and partners affiliated with study sites in Michigan, Florida, and California. They participated in virtual or in-person training facilitated by a peer in English or Spanish and then completed a survey about their abilities (i.e., knowledge and skills for participating in research-related work) and perceptions of the training. Linear regression analyses were used to examine differences in training experience across several factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 394 CHW/Ps, mean age 41.6 ± 13.8 years, completed the training and survey (<i>n</i> = 275 English; 119 Spanish). Most CHW/Ps were female (80%), and 50% identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. Over 95% of CHW/Ps rated their abilities as improved after training; 98% agreed the course was relevant to their work and felt the training was useful. Small differences were observed between training sites.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Most CHW/Ps rated the training positively and noted improved knowledge and skills for engaging in research-related work. Despite slight site differences, the training was well received, and CHW/Ps appreciated having a facilitator with experience working in community-based settings. This course offers a standard and scalable approach to training the CHW/P workforce. Future studies can examine its uptake and effect on research quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"8 1","pages":"e117"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11428051/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Community health workers and promotoras (CHW/Ps) increasingly support research conducted in communities but receive variable or no training. We developed a culturally and linguistically tailored research best practices course for CHW/Ps that can be taken independently or in facilitated groups. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the facilitated training.

Methods: CHW/Ps were recruited from communities and partners affiliated with study sites in Michigan, Florida, and California. They participated in virtual or in-person training facilitated by a peer in English or Spanish and then completed a survey about their abilities (i.e., knowledge and skills for participating in research-related work) and perceptions of the training. Linear regression analyses were used to examine differences in training experience across several factors.

Results: A total of 394 CHW/Ps, mean age 41.6 ± 13.8 years, completed the training and survey (n = 275 English; 119 Spanish). Most CHW/Ps were female (80%), and 50% identified as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish. Over 95% of CHW/Ps rated their abilities as improved after training; 98% agreed the course was relevant to their work and felt the training was useful. Small differences were observed between training sites.

Discussion: Most CHW/Ps rated the training positively and noted improved knowledge and skills for engaging in research-related work. Despite slight site differences, the training was well received, and CHW/Ps appreciated having a facilitator with experience working in community-based settings. This course offers a standard and scalable approach to training the CHW/P workforce. Future studies can examine its uptake and effect on research quality.

对针对社区卫生工作者和宣传员的同伴引导研究最佳做法培训进行评估。
导言:社区保健工作者和宣传员(CHW/Ps)越来越多地支持在社区开展的研究工作,但他们接受的培训却不尽相同,甚至根本没有接受过培训。我们为社区健康工作者和宣传员开发了一套符合其文化和语言特点的研究最佳实践课程,该课程既可独立进行,也可在小组协助下进行。本研究的目的是对协助式培训进行评估:方法:从密歇根州、佛罗里达州和加利福尼亚州的研究机构所属的社区和合作伙伴中招募社区保健工作者。他们参加了由同伴用英语或西班牙语主持的虚拟或现场培训,然后填写了一份关于其能力(即参与研究相关工作的知识和技能)和对培训的看法的调查问卷。我们使用线性回归分析法来研究不同因素对培训体验的影响:共有 394 名 CHW/Ps(平均年龄为 41.6 ± 13.8 岁)完成了培训和调查(n = 275 英语;119 西班牙语)。大多数社区保健工作者/护士为女性(80%),50%的社区保健工作者/护士被认定为西班牙裔、拉丁裔或西班牙人。超过 95% 的社区保健工作者/护工在培训后认为自己的能力得到了提高;98% 的社区保健工作者/护工认为课程与他们的工作相关,并认为培训很有用。不同培训地点之间的差异很小:讨论:大多数社区保健工作者/项目管理人员对培训给予了积极评价,并指出参与研究相关工作的知识和技能得到了提高。尽管培训地点略有不同,但培训仍受到好评,社区保健工作者/护理人员对有一位具有社区工作经验的主持人表示感谢。该课程为培训社区保健工作者/护士队伍提供了一种标准的、可扩展的方法。未来的研究可以考察其接受程度和对研究质量的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信