Evaluation of a Community-Based Participatory Research Consortium From the Perspective of Academics and Community Service Providers Focused on Child Health and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A process evaluation of a consortium of academic researchers and community-based service providers focused on the health and well-being of children and families provides empirical and practice-based evidence of those factors important for community-based participatory research (CBPR). This study draws on quantitative ratings of 33 factors associated with CBPR as well as open-ended questions addressing the benefits, facilitators, barriers, and recommendations for collaboration. Eight distinct but related studies are represented by 10 academic and 9 community researchers. Even though contextual considerations were identified between the academic and community partners, in large part because of their focus, organizational mandate and particular expertise, key factors for facilitating collaboration were found across groups. Both community and academic partners reported the following as very important for positive collaborations: trust and mutual respect; adequate time; shared commitment, decision making, and goals; a memorandum of understanding or partnership agreement; clear communication; involvement of community partners in the interpretation of the data and information dissemination; and regular meetings. The results are compared to current models of collaboration across different contexts and highlight factors important for CBPR with community service providers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.350 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".