Examining the influence of group diversity on the functioning of community-based participatory research partnerships: A mixed methods study

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
P. Paul Chandanabhumma, Sergi Fàbregues, John Oetzel, Bonnie Duran, Chandra Ford
{"title":"Examining the influence of group diversity on the functioning of community-based participatory research partnerships: A mixed methods study","authors":"P. Paul Chandanabhumma,&nbsp;Sergi Fàbregues,&nbsp;John Oetzel,&nbsp;Bonnie Duran,&nbsp;Chandra Ford","doi":"10.1002/ajcp.12626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Public health has endorsed the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) to address health inequities involving diverse and marginalized communities. However, few studies have examined how group diversity among members of CBPR partnerships influenced how well the partnerships achieve their goals of addressing health inequities through equitable collaboration. We conducted secondary, convergent, mixed methods analysis to (1) evaluate the association between group diversity and participatory decision-making within CBPR partnerships, and (2) identify the perceived characteristics, benefits, and challenges of group diversity within CBPR partnerships. Using data from a cross-site study of federally funded CBPR partnerships, we analyzed and integrated data from surveys of 163 partnerships (<i>n</i> = 448 partners) and seven in-depth case study interviews (<i>n</i> = 55 partners). Quantitatively, none of the measured characteristics of group diversity was associated with participatory decision-making within the partnerships. Qualitatively, we found that partnerships mainly benefited from membership differences in functional characteristics (e.g., skillset) but faced challenges from membership differences in sociocultural characteristics (e.g., gender and race). The integrated findings suggest the need to further understand how emergent group characteristics and how practices that engage in group diversity contribute to collective functioning of the partnerships. Attention to this area can help promote health equity achievements of CBPR partnerships.</p>","PeriodicalId":7576,"journal":{"name":"American journal of community psychology","volume":"71 1-2","pages":"242-254"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajcp.12626","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of community psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajcp.12626","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Public health has endorsed the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) to address health inequities involving diverse and marginalized communities. However, few studies have examined how group diversity among members of CBPR partnerships influenced how well the partnerships achieve their goals of addressing health inequities through equitable collaboration. We conducted secondary, convergent, mixed methods analysis to (1) evaluate the association between group diversity and participatory decision-making within CBPR partnerships, and (2) identify the perceived characteristics, benefits, and challenges of group diversity within CBPR partnerships. Using data from a cross-site study of federally funded CBPR partnerships, we analyzed and integrated data from surveys of 163 partnerships (n = 448 partners) and seven in-depth case study interviews (n = 55 partners). Quantitatively, none of the measured characteristics of group diversity was associated with participatory decision-making within the partnerships. Qualitatively, we found that partnerships mainly benefited from membership differences in functional characteristics (e.g., skillset) but faced challenges from membership differences in sociocultural characteristics (e.g., gender and race). The integrated findings suggest the need to further understand how emergent group characteristics and how practices that engage in group diversity contribute to collective functioning of the partnerships. Attention to this area can help promote health equity achievements of CBPR partnerships.

研究群体多样性对社区参与性研究伙伴关系运作的影响:一项混合方法研究
公共卫生部门赞同使用基于社区的参与性研究(CBPR)来解决涉及不同和边缘化社区的卫生不公平现象。然而,很少有研究审查CBPR伙伴关系成员之间的群体多样性如何影响伙伴关系如何通过公平合作实现其解决卫生不平等问题的目标。我们进行了次要的、收敛的、混合的方法分析,以(1)评估CBPR伙伴关系中群体多样性与参与性决策之间的关系;(2)确定CBPR伙伴关系中群体多样性的感知特征、利益和挑战。利用来自联邦政府资助的CBPR合作伙伴跨站点研究的数据,我们分析并整合了163个合作伙伴(n = 448个合作伙伴)的调查数据和7个深度案例研究访谈(n = 55个合作伙伴)。在数量上,没有一个测量的群体多样性特征与伙伴关系中的参与性决策有关。定性上,我们发现伙伴关系主要受益于成员在功能特征(如技能组合)方面的差异,但面临成员在社会文化特征(如性别和种族)方面的差异的挑战。综合研究结果表明,需要进一步了解新兴群体特征以及参与群体多样性的实践如何促进伙伴关系的集体功能。对这一领域的关注有助于促进卫生公平,促进CBPR伙伴关系取得成果。
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
6.30
自引率
9.70%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Community Psychology publishes original quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research; theoretical papers; empirical reviews; reports of innovative community programs or policies; and first person accounts of stakeholders involved in research, programs, or policy. The journal encourages submissions of innovative multi-level research and interventions, and encourages international submissions. The journal also encourages the submission of manuscripts concerned with underrepresented populations and issues of human diversity. The American Journal of Community Psychology publishes research, theory, and descriptions of innovative interventions on a wide range of topics, including, but not limited to: individual, family, peer, and community mental health, physical health, and substance use; risk and protective factors for health and well being; educational, legal, and work environment processes, policies, and opportunities; social ecological approaches, including the interplay of individual family, peer, institutional, neighborhood, and community processes; social welfare, social justice, and human rights; social problems and social change; program, system, and policy evaluations; and, understanding people within their social, cultural, economic, geographic, and historical contexts.
×
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