219688 Working together to address depression: Evaluating the process of leaders' relationship building in the Community Partners in Care initiative

Tuesday, November 9, 2010 : 1:26 PM - 1:40 PM

Dmitry Khodyakov, PhD , RAND Health, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
Elizabeth L. Dixon, RN, MSN/MPH, Phd , Director, QueensCare Health/Faith Partnership, Los Angeles, CA
Bowen Chung, MD, MSHS , Department of Psychiatry, Geffen School of Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA
Andrea Jones , Healthy African American Families II, Los Angeles, CA
Peter J. Mendel, PhD , RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA
James Gilmore, MBA , Behavioral Health Services, Gardenia, CA
Kenneth Wells, MD, MPH , Health Services Research Center, UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience & Human Behavior, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA
  
Equal participation of community and academic leaders is an important feature of community-partnered participatory research initiatives, but few descriptions exist of the evolution of such a leadership model in mental health. This paper tracks the development of the Steering Council (SC) of Community Partners in Care, a participatory multi-disciplinary research initiative to address depression in underserved Los Angeles communities.

Methods: A mixed methods approach, two waves (beginning and mid-point of the intervention planning phase) of SC surveys and observations of three sessions discussing survey results, was used to analyze leadership development and track group processes. Community and academic partners participated in all aspects of this evaluation: framework, data collection, analysis, and writing.

Results: Results from both waves (N1=22 and N2=23) show that SC members agree that they work together to solve problems (100% in wave 1 and 96% in wave 2). However, a higher proportion in wave 2 thinks the council members trust each other (73% in wave 1 and 83% in wave 2), are able to make decisions to keep the project moving forward (82% in wave 2 vs. 74% in wave 1), are effective in engaging community stakeholders (96% in wave 2 vs. 64% in wave 1), and that their participation in the SC benefited them professionally (69% in wave 2 vs. 57% in wave 1).

Conclusion: Relationships and perceived effectiveness of partnered initiatives evolve over time. Our experiences serve as an example of how to build effective working relationships between community and academic partners.

Learning Areas:
Administration, management, leadership
Conduct evaluation related to programs, research, and other areas of practice
Social and behavioral sciences

Learning Objectives:
1. Explain the process of relationship building in a community-academic partnered project 2. List lessons learned from CPIC experience 3. Formulate recommendations for future partnerships

Keywords: Depression, Community-Based Partnership

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am a CPIC study investigator, on the CPIC Steering Committee, and on the evaluation committee.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.

Back to: 4170.0: Elevating the Knowledge Base of CBPR Communities