Andrea Jones

Using Community Arts Events to Enhance Collective Efficacy and Community Engagement to Address Depression in an African American Community

OBJECTIVES We used community-partnered participatory research (CPPR) to measure collective efficacy and its role as a precursor of community engagement to improve depression care in the African American community of South Los Angeles. METHODS We collected survey data from participants at arts events sponsored by a CPPR workgroup. Both exploratory (photography exhibit; n = 747) and confirmatory (spoken word presentations; n = 104) structural equation models were developed to examine how knowledge and attitudes toward depression influenced community engagement. RESULTS In all models, collective efficacy to improve depression care independently predicted community engagement in terms of addressing depression (B = 0.64-0.97; P < .001). Social stigma was not significantly associated with collective efficacy or community engagement. In confirmatory analyses, exposure to spoken word presentations and previous exposure to CPPR initiatives increased perceived collective efficacy to improve depression care (B = 0.19-0.24; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS Enhancing collective efficacy to improve depression care may be a key component of increasing community engagement to address depression. CPPR events may also increase collective efficacy. Both collective efficacy and community engagement are relevant constructs in the South Los Angeles African American community.

On Measuring Community Participation in Research

Active participation of community partners in research aspects of community–academic partnered projects is often assumed to have a positive impact on the outcomes of such projects. The value of community engagement in research, however, cannot be empirically determined without good measures of the level of community participation in research activities. Based on our recent evaluation of community–academic partnered projects centered around behavioral health issues, this article uses semistructured interview and survey data to outline two complementary approaches to measuring the level of community participation in research—a “three-model” approach that differentiates between the levels of community participation and a Community Engagement in Research Index (CERI) that offers a multidimensional view of community engagement in the research process. The primary goal of this article is to present and compare these approaches, discuss their strengths and limitations, summarize the lessons learned, and offer directions for future research. We find that whereas the three-model approach is a simple measure of the perception of community participation in research activities, CERI allows for a more nuanced understanding by capturing multiple aspects of such participation. Although additional research is needed to validate these measures, our study makes a significant contribution by illustrating the complexity of measuring community participation in research and the lack of reliability in simple scores offered by the three-model approach.

An Exploration of the Effect of Community Engagement in Research on Perceived Outcomes of Partnered Mental Health Services Projects

Mental health research projects address sensitive issues for vulnerable populations and are implemented in complex environments. Community-based participatory research approaches are recommended for health research on vulnerable populations, but little is known about how variation in participation affects outcomes of partnered research projects. We developed a conceptual model demonstrating the impact of community engagement in research on outcomes of partnered projects. We collected data on key constructs from community and academic leaders of 21 sampled partnered research projects in two cycles of a research center funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. We conducted empirical analyses to test the model. Our findings suggest that community engagement in research is positively associated with perceived professional development as well as political and community impact.

Integrating community expertise into the academy: South Los Angeles’ community-academic model for partnered research

Abstract:The Problem: Charles R. Drew University (CDU) and community partners wanted to create a structure to transcend traditional community–academic partnerships. They wanted community leaders integrated into CDU’s research goals and education of medical professionals.Purpose of Article: To explain the establishment of the Community Faculty Program, a new model of community–academic partnership that integrates community and academic knowledge.Key Points: Using CBPR principles, CDU and community partners re-conceptualized the faculty appointment process and established the Division of Community Engagement (DCE). CDU initially offered academic appointments to nine community leaders. Community Faculty contributes to CDU’s governance, education, research, and publication goals. This model engaged communities in translational research and transformed the education of future healthcare professionals.Conclusion: The Community Faculty Program is a new vision of partnership. Using a CBPR approach with committed partners, a Community Faculty Program can be created that embodies the values of both the community and the academy.

A Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Depression Collaborative Care: Subanalysis of Comorbid Anxiety:

The purpose of this exploratory subanalysis was to compare the effects of two depression quality improvement approaches on clinical outcomes and service utilization for individuals with comorbid depression/anxiety. This study used data from Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial (N = 1,018; depression = 360; comorbid depression/anxiety = 658). Each intervention arm received the same quality improvement materials, plus either technical support (Resources for Services, RS) or support for collaborative implementation planning (Community Engagement and Planning, CEP). For the comorbid depression/anxiety subgroup, the collaborative planning arm was superior at improving mental health-related quality of life and mental wellness, as well as decreasing behavioral hospitalizations and homelessness risk at 6 months. The effects were not significant at 12 months. A collaborative planning process versus technical support for depression quality improvement can have short-term effects on mental wellness and social determinants of health among those with comorbid depression/anxiety.

Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study

Objective With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research. Methods Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the studys design committee are highlighted. Results CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations. Conclusions Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the studys scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.

Commentary - Community Partner Experiences in CPPR: What Participation in Partnered Research Can Mean to Community and Patient Stakeholders

Community partners and stakeholders currently engaged in community partnered participatory research (CPPR) can provide personal and professional insight into the processes and outcomes surrounding the CPPR model. This insight may indicate alternative solutions or methods of care delivery that can improve the model and existing interventions. We conducted in-person and phone interviews with five community partners who are currently involved in CPPR. The interviews were audio- and video-recorded, transcribed, and major themes identified. Interviewees recounted their experiences with CPPR and reported various levels of personal (ie, behavioral) and professional growth as a result of their involvement. Interviewees also indicated that CPPR can highlight various aspects of existing interventions (eg, leadership structure, stakeholder representation, methods of provider-to-patient communication, and provision of resources) that may benefit from re-evaluation. Engagement in CPPR may offer various personal and professional benefits for individuals (ie, community partners) involved in stages of development, implementation, and dissemination. The benefits affect these individuals in several ways, from personal growth (eg, emotional maturity, behavioral progress, increased familial resiliency) to professional growth (eg, progression of ones career/role/responsibilities, organizational growth, learned skills). These maturations have secondary effects (eg, increased community resilience, strengthened relationships, community-based mentorships) impacting the communities in which these community partners serve.

Community Partnership in Precision Medicine: Themes from a Community Engagement Conference

Background Patient and community engagement in under-resourced communities is a key issue for precision medicine research. We report proceedings from a community-academic partnered conference in Los Angeles to promote community understanding of precision medicine and generate engagement recommendations. Methods Planning group review of planning, presentations, and audience discussions from facilitator notes and participant survey data from a one-day conference. Findings Community-academic planning broadened community participation and presentations. More than 80% of survey participants indicated they would participate in the national precision medicine initiative, and most were willing to share diverse sources of data. Discussions identified trust concerns related to historical research abuses, data privacy, potential effects of findings on health care, personal safety, research procedures, the time-frame for benefit, and confusion about different initiatives. Concerns were balanced by belief in science to improve health. Recommendations included a community partnered participatory approach with support for local community and academic teams to engage stakeholders with written/online resources and partnered workgroups addressing key concerns. Conclusion Conference participants expressed high willingness to participate in precision medicine studies, but discussions highlighted trust and transparency issues and suggested community partnered research with local capacity building.

How can we help African American substance users stop smoking? client and agency perspectives

ABSTRACT Research is needed to better understand barriers to smoking cessation and sustained abstinence among racial/ethnic minority polydrug users. We conducted community dialogue groups involving 49 clients in substance use treatment programs with predominantly ethnic minority clientele and individual dialogues/interviews with seven program providers (stakeholders). Most clients were African American, under 40 years old, women, current smokers, and high school graduates. Smoking cessation services in these programs were considered inadequate and community programs insufficiently culturally tailored and economically and geographically inaccessible. Participants discussed individual “willpower” and choice; agency tobacco-related programs and policies; the relationships between smoking, smoking cessation, and treatment goals; and steps needed to reshape agency services and policies to provide greater support for smoking cessation in this at-risk population.