Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T23:53:06.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

234 Understanding the utility of an evaluation instrument and a feedback mechanism in community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2023

P. Paul Chandanabhumma
Affiliation:
Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan
Jane Berry
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, University of Michigan
Eliza Wilson-Powers
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, University of Michigan
Zachary Rowe
Affiliation:
Friends of Parkside
Angela G. Reyes
Affiliation:
Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation
Laurie Lachance
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, University of Michigan
Barbara L. Brush
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, University of Michigan
Barbara A. Israel
Affiliation:
School of Public Health, University of Michigan
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: To examine i) how longstanding (≥6 years) community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships nationwide implemented a validated questionnaire to measure success and its contributing factors and ii) how the CBPR partnerships utilized and applied a feedback mechanism, or reports of findings from the questionnaire and a facilitation guide METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This mixed methods study builds upon a larger NIH-funded project entitled ’Measurement Approaches to Partnership Success (MAPS). MAPS developed and validated the 109-item MAPS questionnaire to measure success in longstanding (≥6 years) CBPR partnerships. In 2020, 55 CBPR partnerships nationwide completed the MAPS Questionnaire and, a year later, received the MAPS Feedback Mechanism, consisting of questionnaire findings and a facilitation guide on how to present the findings. In this follow-up study, we administered multi-method surveys to each partnership contact person in 2022 to examine their experience with and utility of the MAPS Questionnaire and the MAPS Feedback mechanism. We performed descriptive analysis of quantitative responses using SAS and thematic analysis of qualitative responses. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Survey responses have been presently collected from 14 partnerships. Preliminary findings suggest that the most frequently reported benefits of completing the MAPS Questionnaire included stimulating partnership reflections and ease of completion. Many partnerships shared results of the MAPS Questionnaire by e-mail or during partnership meetings. Nearly half of the partnerships rated components of the MAPS feedback mechanism as useful. Over one-third of the partnerships reported that the COVID pandemic limited their capacity to engage with the MAPS Feedback Mechanism. Key qualitative suggestions included making the MAPS Questionnaire shorter, providing it in a different format, and offering additional facilitation to support the implementation of the MAPS Feedback Mechanism. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: This study examines how CBPR partnerships utilize an evaluation instrument and apply results on success. Current findings suggest potential utility of the MAPS Questionnaire and Feedback Mechanism for ongoing evaluation. Reducing the questionnaire length and providing facilitation resources may enhance implementation across diverse settings.

Type
Health Equity and Community Engagement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. The Association for Clinical and Translational Science