Academic Institutional Barriers and Facilitators to Community-Based Participatory Research.

IF 0.6 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Nolan Kline, Stacey Griner, Malinee Neelamegam, Nathaniel Webb, Srivennela Veeramachaneni, Deborah Morris-Harris, John Carlo, Jonathan Guadian, Barbara Dunlap
{"title":"Academic Institutional Barriers and Facilitators to Community-Based Participatory Research.","authors":"Nolan Kline, Stacey Griner, Malinee Neelamegam, Nathaniel Webb, Srivennela Veeramachaneni, Deborah Morris-Harris, John Carlo, Jonathan Guadian, Barbara Dunlap","doi":"10.1353/cpr.2025.a965358","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Collaborative research between researchers and community members can meaningfully address public health concerns. Collaboration can be complicated, however, due to unanticipated challenges stemming from academic institutions. This article describes how academic institutions can hinder and facilitate community-based research.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated a research partnership focused on structural determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Latinx people who (1) have a precarious immigration status; (2) are sexual and gender minorities; and (3) can become pregnant.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We completed a process evaluation with community organization partners who collaborated on the study. We asked community partners to describe benefits and challenges of collaborating with academic institutions.</p><p><strong>Lessons learned: </strong>Our evaluation revealed institutional challenges to successful community-based partnerships, including institutional review board delays and institutional expectations that failed to understand grassroots community organizations. Using the concept of bureaucratic violence, we describe how academic institutions can constrain community-based research and provide suggestions for how academic partners might overcome institutional hurdles.</p>","PeriodicalId":46970,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action","volume":"19 2","pages":"213-218"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Community Health Partnerships-Research Education and Action","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2025.a965358","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Collaborative research between researchers and community members can meaningfully address public health concerns. Collaboration can be complicated, however, due to unanticipated challenges stemming from academic institutions. This article describes how academic institutions can hinder and facilitate community-based research.

Objectives: We evaluated a research partnership focused on structural determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Latinx people who (1) have a precarious immigration status; (2) are sexual and gender minorities; and (3) can become pregnant.

Methods: We completed a process evaluation with community organization partners who collaborated on the study. We asked community partners to describe benefits and challenges of collaborating with academic institutions.

Lessons learned: Our evaluation revealed institutional challenges to successful community-based partnerships, including institutional review board delays and institutional expectations that failed to understand grassroots community organizations. Using the concept of bureaucratic violence, we describe how academic institutions can constrain community-based research and provide suggestions for how academic partners might overcome institutional hurdles.

基于社区的参与性研究的学术、制度障碍和促进因素。
背景:研究人员和社区成员之间的合作研究可以有意义地解决公共卫生问题。然而,由于来自学术机构的意想不到的挑战,协作可能会变得复杂。本文描述了学术机构如何阻碍和促进基于社区的研究。目的:我们评估了一项研究伙伴关系,重点关注以下人群中COVID-19疫苗犹豫的结构性决定因素:(1)移民身份不稳定;(2)性少数和性别少数;(3)会怀孕。方法:我们与合作研究的社区组织合作伙伴完成了过程评估。我们要求社区合作伙伴描述与学术机构合作的好处和挑战。经验教训:我们的评估揭示了成功的社区伙伴关系面临的制度挑战,包括机构审查委员会的延误和机构期望未能了解基层社区组织。利用官僚暴力的概念,我们描述了学术机构如何限制基于社区的研究,并为学术合作伙伴如何克服制度障碍提供了建议。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
65
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信