MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7115178040 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2025.1693459

Community-based participatory research: a lifeline to achieve people-centered care

2025· article· en· W7115178040 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Health and Surgery
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthHillman Foundation
KeywordsOperationalizationParticipatory action researchHealth equityCommunity-based participatory researchPublic healthHealth careHealth promotionBlueprint

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People-centered care (PCC) represents a key paradigm shift in achieving universal health coverage and closing global public health divides. Amid growing global health disparities, shifts in epidemiological disease burden, and evolving sociopolitical contexts that affect healthcare delivery and research initiatives, there is an urgent need for public health scientists to develop community-rooted research strategies that uphold health promotion principles and sustain PCC. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a social justice approach that offers a distinct, equity-driven perspective on operationalizing PCC. CBPR fosters long-term, trust-based partnerships; centers the lived experiences and leadership of underserved populations; and co-develops sustainable health interventions that are culturally attuned to communities. Among participatory and community-engaged approaches, CBPR most closely aligns with—and can directly strengthen—the implementation of PCC principles. This paper presents an interprofessional and internationally relevant analysis of how CBPR can support PCC across clinical, public health, and policy domains. We begin by outlining foundational processes for establishing equitable academic–community partnerships. We then detail exemplar CBPR initiatives with racially and ethnically minoritized populations, as well as rural border and migrant communities, highlighting how these collaborations have advanced PCC goals. These exemplars, structured around key CBPR processes and mapped to PCC principles, form the basis of a conceptual blueprint for action. Next, we present a framework for applying CBPR to promote uptake of the World Health Organization’s integrated model for PCC, emphasizing its relevance with consideration to shifting policy and funding landscapes. Finally, we offer actionable recommendations for clinicians, researchers, community partners, health systems, and policy actors to integrate CBPR across the research continuum. To fully realize PCC in a rapidly changing world, researchers must shift from producing knowledge about communities to co-producing knowledge with them, ensuring that science is conducted in equal partnership with those most affected by structural health inequities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.251
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicGlobal Health and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207