Cargando…

Is Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) Useful? A Systematic Review on Papers in a Decade

BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been applied by health researchers and practitioners to address health disparities and community empowerment for health promotion. Despite the growing popularity of CBPR projects, there has been little effort to synthesize the literature...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salimi, Yahya, Shahandeh, Khandan, Malekafzali, Hossein, Loori, Nina, Kheiltash, Azita, Jamshidi, Ensiyeh, Frouzan, Ameneh S., Majdzadeh, Reza
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22783464
_version_ 1782237312581632000
author Salimi, Yahya
Shahandeh, Khandan
Malekafzali, Hossein
Loori, Nina
Kheiltash, Azita
Jamshidi, Ensiyeh
Frouzan, Ameneh S.
Majdzadeh, Reza
author_facet Salimi, Yahya
Shahandeh, Khandan
Malekafzali, Hossein
Loori, Nina
Kheiltash, Azita
Jamshidi, Ensiyeh
Frouzan, Ameneh S.
Majdzadeh, Reza
author_sort Salimi, Yahya
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been applied by health researchers and practitioners to address health disparities and community empowerment for health promotion. Despite the growing popularity of CBPR projects, there has been little effort to synthesize the literature to evaluate CBPR projects. The present review attempts to identify appropriate elements that may contribute to the successful or unsuccessful interventions. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken using evidence identified through searching electronic databases, web sites, and reference list checks. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed by reviewers. Levels of evidence, accounting for methodologic quality, were assessed for 3 types of CBPR approaches, including interventional, observational, and qualitative research design as well as CBPR elements through separate abstraction forms. Each included study was appraised with 2 quality grades, one for the elements of CBPR and one for research design. RESULTS: Of 14,222 identified articles, 403 included in the abstract review. Of these, 70 CBPR studies, that 56 intervention studies had different designs, and finally 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings show that collaboration among community partners, researchers, and organizations led to community-level action to improve the health and wellbeing and to minimize health disparities. It enhanced the capacity of the community in terms of research and leadership skills. The result provided examples of effective CBPR that took place in a variety of communities. However, little has been written about the organizational capacities required to make these efforts successful. CONCLUSION: Some evidences were found for potentially effective strategies to increase the participant's levels of CBPR activities. Interventions that included community involvement have the potential to make important differences to levels of activities and should be promoted.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3389435
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33894352012-07-10 Is Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) Useful? A Systematic Review on Papers in a Decade Salimi, Yahya Shahandeh, Khandan Malekafzali, Hossein Loori, Nina Kheiltash, Azita Jamshidi, Ensiyeh Frouzan, Ameneh S. Majdzadeh, Reza Int J Prev Med Original Article BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has been applied by health researchers and practitioners to address health disparities and community empowerment for health promotion. Despite the growing popularity of CBPR projects, there has been little effort to synthesize the literature to evaluate CBPR projects. The present review attempts to identify appropriate elements that may contribute to the successful or unsuccessful interventions. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken using evidence identified through searching electronic databases, web sites, and reference list checks. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were assessed by reviewers. Levels of evidence, accounting for methodologic quality, were assessed for 3 types of CBPR approaches, including interventional, observational, and qualitative research design as well as CBPR elements through separate abstraction forms. Each included study was appraised with 2 quality grades, one for the elements of CBPR and one for research design. RESULTS: Of 14,222 identified articles, 403 included in the abstract review. Of these, 70 CBPR studies, that 56 intervention studies had different designs, and finally 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings show that collaboration among community partners, researchers, and organizations led to community-level action to improve the health and wellbeing and to minimize health disparities. It enhanced the capacity of the community in terms of research and leadership skills. The result provided examples of effective CBPR that took place in a variety of communities. However, little has been written about the organizational capacities required to make these efforts successful. CONCLUSION: Some evidences were found for potentially effective strategies to increase the participant's levels of CBPR activities. Interventions that included community involvement have the potential to make important differences to levels of activities and should be promoted. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2012-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3389435/ /pubmed/22783464 Text en Copyright: © International Journal of Preventive Medicine http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Salimi, Yahya
Shahandeh, Khandan
Malekafzali, Hossein
Loori, Nina
Kheiltash, Azita
Jamshidi, Ensiyeh
Frouzan, Ameneh S.
Majdzadeh, Reza
Is Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) Useful? A Systematic Review on Papers in a Decade
title Is Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) Useful? A Systematic Review on Papers in a Decade
title_full Is Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) Useful? A Systematic Review on Papers in a Decade
title_fullStr Is Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) Useful? A Systematic Review on Papers in a Decade
title_full_unstemmed Is Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) Useful? A Systematic Review on Papers in a Decade
title_short Is Community-based Participatory Research (CBPR) Useful? A Systematic Review on Papers in a Decade
title_sort is community-based participatory research (cbpr) useful? a systematic review on papers in a decade
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389435/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22783464
work_keys_str_mv AT salimiyahya iscommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchcbprusefulasystematicreviewonpapersinadecade
AT shahandehkhandan iscommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchcbprusefulasystematicreviewonpapersinadecade
AT malekafzalihossein iscommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchcbprusefulasystematicreviewonpapersinadecade
AT loorinina iscommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchcbprusefulasystematicreviewonpapersinadecade
AT kheiltashazita iscommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchcbprusefulasystematicreviewonpapersinadecade
AT jamshidiensiyeh iscommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchcbprusefulasystematicreviewonpapersinadecade
AT frouzanamenehs iscommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchcbprusefulasystematicreviewonpapersinadecade
AT majdzadehreza iscommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchcbprusefulasystematicreviewonpapersinadecade