Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer
2.2. Training Objectives
2.2.1. Training Objective 1: Creating and Maintaining CBPR Teams
- Individual motivation and personal goals to help the partners learn about each other and find purpose and goals for the partnership;
- Ability to work well with each other including understanding the differences and similarities of academic and community-based institutional pressures;
- Creating institutionalization and sustainability of CBPR within academic and community institutions;
- Dealing with conflict, while maintaining a strong relationship;
- Creating partnership agreements and team evaluation methods and timeline;
- Expanding the team to include additional team members;
- Establishing team agreements, including decision making and how to handle conflict;
- Dissemination to both community and academic audiences.
2.2.2. Training Objective 2: Understanding the Science of Breast Cancer Prevention
2.2.3. Training Objective 3: Creating a Pathway from Idea to Funded Research Project
2.2.4. Training Objective 4: Writing Successful Grant Applications
2.3. Training Program
2.4.1. Demographics Questionnaire
2.4.2. Pre-Training and Post-Training Questionnaire
2.4.3. Satisfaction and Feedback Survey
2.4.4. Follow-Up Questionnaire
3.1. Demographics of Participants
3.2. Feasibility of Training
3.3. Acceptability of Training
3.2.1. FTF Component
- Participants felt that the curriculum (presentations and activities) was exemplary;
- Teams benefited greatly from the partnership building activities;
- The environment supported co-learning among participants and between participants and trainers/speakers;
- Participants appreciated receiving detailed feedback from the Mock Review;
- The opportunity to observe the Mock Review benefited participants.
3.2.2. OLT Component
- Benefits of OLT included access to valuable resources, learning opportunities, and interaction with other participants;
- Challenges of OLT included time constraints and the difficulty some participants had engaging in the online environment because they did not feel stimulated, did not feel they had much to contribute, and/or were not comfortable communicating with others in an online forum;
- Webinars were positively received although technical problems with one webinar compromised its quality.
3.2.3. Telephone TA Component
- Mentoring and feedback were very helpful to the teams;
- Some teams were frustrated and/or confused when they received conflicting feedback from the CRIBS trainers and mock reviewers;
- The TA, particularly the mock review debrief, helped validate feelings and concerns;
- The TA was helpful in answering team’s specific questions.
3.4. Impact of Training
- It was designed to increase the number of CBPR teams conducting research on two understudied areas of breast cancer—environmental causes of breast cancer and disparities in breast cancer;
- It trained both new and existing CBPR teams to build a collaborative CBPR partnership;
- It offered participants a mock grant application review, providing an insider perspective on the decision-making process seldom experienced by research grant applicants;
- It coordinated the timing of the training so that CBPR teams were fed directly into a relevant funding cycle.
- Training is effective: Intensive training in CBPR can successfully build new and strengthen existing partnerships, as well as increase the chance that teams will be successful in receiving research funding.
- Team training has benefits: There are considerable benefits to training the academic partner and community partner together. Time together in a learning environment allowed teams to build agreements on how to work, develop a common language around the issues they want to address and test their compatibility in skills and working styles before beginning a multi-year working relationship.
- Teaching science and partnership skills deepened the experience: Combining training in both science and building a CBPR partnership allowed teams to gain a more holistic and grounded approach to the entire spectrum of responsibilities associated with conducting CBPR.
- Mock reviews added value: The mock review provided a realistic perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the teams’ proposal, as well as insight into the wide range of interpretation reviewers may have to a proposal. We know of no other trainings that provide such an opportunity for grant applicants to experience such a realistic perspective on their work.
- Having a funding source matters: Connecting training to an opportunity to apply to a specific funding source strengthened the training. Specifically, it allowed experiential training sessions to be focused on results (for example, training on how to develop a CBPR budget that connects directly to the budget requirements of CBCRP’s CRC grant application). Additionally, it gave teams a goal and a deadline to work through their process.
- Shorter training: Many participants felt the training was valuable, but possibly too time intensive.
- More interaction: Teams expressed a preference for more unstructured time with their partners to develop research ideas and build their partnership.
- Tailor sessions to the participants’ needs: All sessions were required for both academic and community partners. Future trainings could split the partners for some sessions.
- Discuss the challenge of conflicting feedback more extensively: Even though this was raised, teams were still frustrated by conflicting feedback. More emphasis on the inevitability of conflicting feedback and how to work with it could be helpful.
- Improve the quality of webinars: Use a better platform to ensure that trainers and participants can interact smoothly.
- Proactively intervene when teams are challenged: As mentioned, two teams were reconfigured between the beginning of the training and submission of the grant proposals. CRIBS trainers should intervene at the earliest signs of trouble for teams, to assist their working through issues or restructuring.
Conflicts of Interest
- Wallerstein, N.; Duran, B. The Conceptual, Historical, and Practice Roots of Community Based Participatory Research and Related Participatory Traditions. In Community Based Participatory Research for Health; Minkler, M., Wallerstein, N., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 27–52. [Google Scholar]
- Cornwall, A.; Jewkes, R. What is participatory research? Soc. Sci. Med. 1995, 41, 1667–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Israel, B.A.; Schulz, A.J.; Parker, E.A.; Becker, A.B. Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 1998, 19, 173–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Unertl, K.M.; Schaefbauer, C.L.; Campbell, T.R.; Senteio, C.; Siek, K.A.; Bakken, S.; Veinot, T.C. Integrating community-based participatory research and informatics approaches to improve the engagement and health of underserved populations. JAMIA 2016, 23, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brody, J.G.; Kavanaugh-Lynch, M.; Olopade, O.; Shinagawa, S.; Steingraber, S.; Williams, D. Identifying Gaps in Breast Cancer Research: Addressing Disparities and the Roles of the Physical and Social Environment; California Breast Cancer Research Program: Oakland, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Plumb, M.; Collins, N.; Cordeiro, J.N.; Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. Assessing process and outcomes: Evaluating community-based participatory research. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2008, 2, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plumb, M.; Collins, N.; Cordeiro, J.N.; Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. Transforming Partnerships: The Relationship between Collaboration and Outcomes in the Community Research Collaboration Awards; California Breast Cancer Research Program: Oakland, CA, USA, 2007; p. 34. [Google Scholar]
- Van Olphen, J.; Ottoson, J.; Green, L.; Barlow, J.; Koblick, K.; Hiatt, R.; Nguyen, T.T.; McPhee, S.J.; Bui-Tong, N.; Luong, T.N. Evaluation of a Partnership Approach to Translating Research on Breast Cancer and the Environment. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2009, 3, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Suarez-Balcazar, Y.; Harper, G.W.; Lewis, R. An Interactive and Contextual Model of Community-University Collaborations for Research and Action. Health Educ. Behav. 2005, 32, 84–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulz, A.J.; Israel, B.A.; Parker, E.A.; Lockett, M.; Hill, Y.R.; Wills, R. Engaging Women in Community Based Participatory Research for Health: The East Side Village Health Worker Partnership. In Community Based Participatory Research for Health; Minkler, M., Wallerstein, N., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2003; pp. 293–315. [Google Scholar]
- Israel, B.A. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005; p. 479. [Google Scholar]
- Minkler, M.; Vasquez, V.B.; Tajik, M.; Petersen, D. Promoting environmental justice through community-based participatory research: The role of community and partnership capacity. Health Educ. Behav. 2008, 35, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Application and Funding Process, California Breast Cancer Research Program. Available online: http://www.cbcrp.org/funding-opportunities/crc/index.html (accessed on 13 September 2019).
- Kolb, D.A. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development; Pearson Education: Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Wiggins, G.P.; McTighe, J. Understanding by Design; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: Alexandria, VA, USA, 1998; p. 201. [Google Scholar]
- Druskat, V.U.; Wolff, S.B. Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2001, 79, 80–91. [Google Scholar]
- Thornburg, D.D. Campfires in Cyberspace; Starsong Publications: Nashville, TN, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Brooks-Harris, J.E.; Stock-Ward, S.R. Workshops: Designing and Facilitating Experiential Learning; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1999; p. 188. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Making cooperative learning work. Theory Pract. 1999, 38, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coombe, C.M.; Schulz, A.J.; Guluma, L.; Allen, A.J.; Gray, C.; Brakefield-Caldwell, W.; Guzman, J.R.; Lewis, T.C.; Reyes, A.G.; Rowe, Z.; et al. Enhancing Capacity of Community-Academic Partnerships to Achieve Health Equity: Results from the CBPR Partnership Academy. Health Promot. Pract. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrews, J.O.; Cox, M.J.; Newman, S.D.; Gillenwater, G.; Warner, G.; Winkler, J.A.; White, B.; Wolf, S.; Leite, R.; Ford, M.E.; et al. Training partnership dyads for community-based participatory research: Strategies and lessons learned from the Community Engaged Scholars Program. Health Promot. Pract. 2013, 14, 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Winckler, E.; Brown, J.; Lebailly, S.; McGee, R.; Bayldon, B.; Huber, G.; Kaleba, E.; Lowry, K.W.; Martens, J.; Mason, M.; et al. A novel program trains community-academic teams to build research and partnership capacity. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2013, 6, 214–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Allen, M.L.; Culhane-Pera, K.A.; Pergament, S.; Call, K.T. A capacity building program to promote CBPR partnerships between academic researchers and community members. Clin. Transl. Sci. 2011, 4, 428–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rubin, C.L.; Martinez, L.S.; Chu, J.; Hacker, K.; Brugge, D.; Pirie, A.; Allukian, N.; Rodday, A.M.; Leslie, L.K. Community-engaged pedagogy: A strengths-based approach to involving diverse stakeholders in research partnerships. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2012, 6, 481–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Amico, K.L.; Wieland, M.L.; Weis, J.A.; Sullivan, S.M.; Nigon, J.A.; Sia, I.G. Capacity building through focus group training in community-based participatory research. Educ. Health 2011, 24, 638. [Google Scholar]
- May, M.; Law, J. CBPR as community health intervention: Institutionalizing CBPR within community based organizations. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2008, 2, 145–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crosby, L.E.; Parr, W.; Smith, T.; Mitchell, M.J. The community leaders institute: An innovative program to train community leaders in health research. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med Coll. 2013, 88, 335–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burke, J.G.; Hess, S.; Hoffmann, K.; Guizzetti, L.; Loy, E.; Gielen, A.; Bailey, M.; Walnoha, A.; Barbee, G.; Yonas, M. Translating community-based participatory research principles into practice. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2013, 7, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndulue, U.; Perea, F.C.; Kayou, B.; Martinez, L.S. Team-building activities as strategies for improving community-university partnerships: Lessons learned from Nuestro Futuro Saludable. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2012, 6, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hacker, K.; Tendulkar, S.A.; Rideout, C.; Bhuiya, N.; Trinh-Shevrin, C.; Savage, C.P.; Grullon, M.; Strelnick, H.; Leung, C.; DiGirolamo, A. Community capacity building and sustainability: Outcomes of community-based participatory research. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2012, 6, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Israel, B.A.; Coombe, C.M.; Cheezum, R.R.; Schulz, A.J.; McGranaghan, R.J.; Lichtenstein, R.; Reyes, A.G.; Clement, J.; Burris, A. Community-based participatory research: A capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 2094–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stewart, M.K.; Colley, D.; Huff, A.; Felix, H.; Shelby, B.; Strickland, E.; Redmond, P.; Evans, M.; Baker, B.; Stephens, G.; et al. Participatory development and implementation of a community research workshop: Experiences from a community-based participatory research partnership. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2009, 3, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goodman, M.S.; Si, X.; Stafford, J.D.; Obasohan, A.; McHunguzi, C. Quantitative assessment of participant knowledge and evaluation of participant satisfaction in the CARES training program. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2012, 6, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ruiz, Y.; Matos, S.; Kapadia, S.; Islam, N.; Cusack, A.; Kwong, S.; Trinh-Shevrin, C. Lessons learned from a community-academic initiative: The development of a core competency-based training for community-academic initiative community health workers. Am. J. Public Health 2012, 102, 2372–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Masuda, J.R.; Creighton, G.; Nixon, S.; Frankish, J. Building capacity for community-based participatory research for health disparities in Canada: The case of “Partnerships in Community Health Research”. Health Promot. Pract. 2011, 12, 280–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosenthal, M.S.; Lucas, G.I.; Tinney, B.; Mangione, C.; Schuster, M.A.; Wells, K.; Wong, M.; Schwarz, D.; Tuton, L.W.; Howell, J.D.; et al. Teaching community-based participatory research principles to physicians enrolled in a health services research fellowship. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med Coll. 2009, 84, 478–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Olphen, J.; Wallerstein, N.; Evans, J.; McClinton Brown, R.; Tokunaga, J.; Worthen, M. A San Francisco Bay Area CBPR Training Institute: Experiences, Curriculum, and Lessons Learned. Pedagog. Health Promot. 2015, 1, 203–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eaton, A.D.; Ibáñez-Carrasco, F.; Craig, S.L.; Chan Carusone, S.; Montess, M.; Wells, G.A.; Ginocchio, G.F. A blended learning curriculum for training peer researchers to conduct community-based participatory research. Action Learn. Res. Pract. 2018, 15, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samuel, C.A.; Lightfoot, A.F.; Schaal, J.; Yongue, C.; Black, K.; Ellis, K.; Robertson, L.; Smith, B.; Jones, N.; Foley, K.; et al. Establishing New Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships using the Community-Based Participatory Research Charrette Model: Lessons from the Cancer Health Accountability for Managing Pain and Symptoms Study. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. Res. Educ. Action 2018, 12, 89–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fröding, K.; Elander, I.; Eriksson, A. Community-Based Participatory Research Process in a Poor Swedish Neighbourhood. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2015, 28, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirsh, E.; Hirsh, K.; Hirsh, S. Introduction to Myers-Briggs Type and Teams; The Myers-Briggs Company: Sunnyvale, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Health, N. Research Project Success Rates by NIH Institute. Available online: https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/Success_ByIC.cfm (accessed on 13 September 2019).
|Demographic Characteristic||All (n = 32)||Community (n = 18)||Academic (n = 14)|
|Community or Academic Partner||-||54%||46%|
|Lesbian or Gay||3%||-||6%|
|Born outside of US||29%||16%||43%|
|American Indian/Alaskan Native||6%||11%||-|
|$25K to $75K||31%||37%||25%|
|Language Other than English Spoken at Home||17%||11%||25%|
|Type of Session||# of Sessions||Ave Score||Lowest Session Score||Highest Session Score|
|Mock Study Section||1||4.86||4.86||4.86|
|Trainers||# Trainers||Ave Score||Low Score||High Score|
|Phone TA Leader||16||4.38||3.25||5.00|
|In-person TA Leader||13||4.39||3.14||4.86|
(n = 31)
|CRIBS Learning Domain||Pre-Training||Post-Training||Difference||Percent Improvement||z Value||p Value|
|Scientific Research||3.34||3.78||0.435||13.03%||3.167||0.0015 **|
|Disseminating Results||2.89||3.41||0.52||18.03%||3.717||0.0002 ***|
|Breast Cancer Science||2.56||3.75||1.19||46.3%||4.140||0.00005 ***|
(n = 18)
|CRIBS Learning Domain||Pre-Training||Post-Training||Difference||Percent Improvement||z Value||p Value|
|Scientific Research||2.826||3.458||0.6319||22.36%||2.573||0.0101 *|
|Disseminating Results||2.549||3.209||0.6605||25.9%||2.919||0.0035 **|
|Breast Cancer Science||2.378||3.911||1.53||64.5%||3.575||0.0004 ***|
(n = 13)
|CRIBS Learning Domain||Pre-Training||Post-Training||Difference||Percent Improvement||z Value||p Value|
|Disseminating Results||3.358||3.68||0.325||9.7%||2.315||0.0206 *|
|Breast Cancer Science||2.815||3.52||0.708||25.14%||1.961||0.0499 *|
|Training Program||Those (CBPR projects presented) were really good examples of how the community responds to research and how we can go about doing work with them.|
|I think it doesn’t matter what our economic situation is—I think our life experiences are very, very similar. And I think economics makes it harder or softer, but we have these emotional threads that go through us as black women—a lot of us can relate to a lot of the same things. And so what she found [trainer Sarah Gehlert], when she put science to what is so much in our heart and in our head, that impacted me personally.|
|... another thing I thought was really good was seeing the team of people who coordinated the training in action, because a lot of the stuff they were teaching us, they were actually role modeling for us as well … I got to see how they broke up roles and responsibilities and how they kind of worked out all the logistics. And so that was really helpful.|
|Partnership Building||Face to face trainings were the most beneficial for several reasons. It was one of the times where the entire team was able to meet, spend time together, and get to know each other as well as other CRIBS teams. It also provided opportunities for team members to hash out ideas and have their work critiqued (which took place during the training activities). The face to face trainings also served as an impetus to get assignments done and be accountable to each other. The major advantage of face to face trainings is that it takes team members away from the other commitments/responsibilities which might otherwise serve as a barrier to making progress on the team project.|
|Being together with our partners was really a great way to get to know one another also, just spending that time with one another.|
|… the Myers-Briggs exercise was really great for kind of solidifying things with using terms of appreciating our personalities and finding ways to adapt, you know, and to minimize misunderstandings and … take into account each person’s personality traits …|
|Learning from each other||I also appreciated not only hearing from the experts but hearing from others in the audience about environmental risks in their particular geographic areas and becoming aware that some of the concerns are statewide but some concerns are very specific to geographic areas.|
|So, I enjoyed hearing from other partnerships (about) some of the challenges they might be facing or the ways they’ve been successful. And also the ideas they’re generating as well as the opportunity to network for the potential for broader partnerships across the state. So, I made several connections and people that I have linked outside of our county. Outside of the county where we’re partnered and outside the county where I work because we came together with all the partnerships.|
|… it definitely had the feeling that we were a group that was being formed. Yes, we had our own individual teams, but also as a group we were in formation, and we were able to form some bonds. And, just the whole creative process is better when you have a group dynamic.|
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Plumb, M.; Poole, S.F.; Sarantis, H.; Braun, S.; Cordeiro, J.; Van Olphen, J.; Kavanaugh-Lynch, M. Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 4310. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224310
Plumb M, Poole SF, Sarantis H, Braun S, Cordeiro J, Van Olphen J, Kavanaugh-Lynch M. Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(22):4310. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224310Chicago/Turabian Style
Plumb, Marj, Senaida Fernandez Poole, Heather Sarantis, Susan Braun, Janna Cordeiro, Juliana Van Olphen, and Marion Kavanaugh-Lynch. 2019. "Development and Evaluation of a Training Program for Community-Based Participatory Research in Breast Cancer" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 22: 4310. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224310