Do community-based participatory researchers differ from traditional researchers in how they think about and engage in research dissemination and translation into practice?


Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

3355.0: Monday, December 12, 2005 - 4:30 PM

Abstract #115419

Do community-based participatory researchers differ from traditional researchers in how they think about and engage in research dissemination and translation into practice?

Shawna L. Mercer, MSc, PhD¹, Reena Borwankar, MS², Junette McWilliams, MA², and Carmen Tedesco, MA². (1) Office of the Chief of Science, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway N.E., MS K56, Atlanta, GA 30341, 770-488-8475, SMercer@cdc.gov, (2) Center for Applied Behavioral and Evaluation Research, The Academy for Educational Development, 1825 Connecticut Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20009

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has traditionally been recognized for its strengths in addressing health disparities. Growing concern with translating research evidence into policy and practice has highlighted CBPR's additional promise in generating research that is useful to a specific community. Nonetheless, the extent to which CBPR researchers engage in research dissemination and translation is unknown. This study therefore sought to determine whether CBPR and traditional researchers differ in their perspectives and plans surrounding dissemination and translation. Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the principal investigators (PIs) of 56 research projects funded through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Extramural Prevention Research Program. Thematic analyses were used to compare responses of PIs conducting CBPR (~25%) and non-CBPR projects (~75%). Dissemination efforts of non-CBPR PIs focused largely on academic publications and presentations while CBPR PIs paid additional attention to disseminating to lay audiences. Whereas both CBPR and non-CBPR PIs identified the importance of translating their study findings to other people/settings, CBPR PIs were also explicitly interested in translating tools, strategies, and lessons learned to impact practice and policy. Many non-CBPR PIs did not have plans for translation and/or were unsure how to translate. Most CBPR PIs had plans for translation and were comfortable discussing them. CBPR PIs wanted CDC's support to disseminate/translate their specific findings and to identify “best practices” for the field while non-CBPR PIs only mentioned the former. These findings suggest that some CBPR researchers engage extensively in dissemination and translation and suggest avenues for broadening their efforts.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of this session, participants will be able to

1. Identify benefits and potential limitations of community-based participatory research for disseminating and translating research evidence into practice and policy.
2. Delineate differences in the ways that traditional and community-based participatory researchers approach research dissemination and translation into practice and policy.
3. Itemize concrete ways in which researchers and funding agencies can participate in research dissemination and translation into practice and policy.

Keywords: Community Participation, Evidence Based Practice

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.

Recorded presentation

Translating Research into Policy and Decision-Making at the Federal, State and Local Level

The 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition (December 10-14, 2005) of APHA