principles of practice for academic

8/8/2019 Principles of Practice for Academic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/principles-of-practice-for-academic 1/20

Principles of practice for academic/practice/community research partnerships

Elizabeth A. Baker PhD, MPHa,

, Sharon Homan PhDa, Sr. Rita Schonhoff

band

Matthew Kreuter PhD, MPHa

a Saint Louis University, Department of Community Health, St. Louis, MO, USA

bWhole Health Outreach, Ellington, MO, USA

Available online 24 March 1999.

Abstract

Context: Researchers and practitioners are increasingly realizing that improvements in public

health require changes in individual, social, and economic factors. Concurrent with this renewed

awareness there has been a growing interest in working with communities to create healthful

changes through academic/practice/community research partnerships. However, this type of

research presents different challenges and requires different skills than traditional research

projects. The development of a set of principles of practice for these types of research projects

can assist researchers in developing, implementing, and evaluating their partnerships and their

project activities.

Objective: This paper describes the different ways in which academics and community groups

may work together, including academic/practice/community partnerships. Several principles of

practice for engaging in these research partnerships are presented followed by a description of

how these principles have been put into operation in a family violence prevention program.

Conclusions: The principles presented are: (1) identify the best processes/model to be used based

on the nature of the issue and the intended outcome; (2) acknowledge the difference between

community input and active community involvement; (3) develop relationships based on mutual

trust and respect; (4) acknowledge and honor different partner¶s ³agendas´; (5) consider multi-



disciplinary approaches; (6) use evaluation strategies that are consistent with the overall

approach taken in the academic/practice/community partnership; and (7) be aware of partnership

maturation and associated transition periods. The limitations of these principles and their

application in various settings are discussed.

Author Keywords: Medical Subject Headings: research(collaborative); community

participation; program evaluation

Article Outline

Introduction

Child abuse prevention

Whole Health Outreach

Principles of practice

Identify the best processes/ model to be used based on the nature of the issue and the intendedoutcome

Description of principle

Example: Whole Health Outreach/Resource Mothers Program Acknowledge the difference between community input and active community involvement


Example: Whole Health Outreach/Resource Mothers Program

Develop relationships based on mutual trust and respect



Acknowledge and honor different partner¶s ³agendas´


Example: Whole Health Outreach/Resource Mothers Program Consider multidisciplinary approaches


Example: Whole Health Outreach/Resource Mothers Program Use evaluation strategies that are consistent with the overall approach taken in the

academic/practice/community partnership



Be aware of partnership maturation and associated transition periods



Summary and conclusions

Acknowledgements

References



Introduction

A n increasing number of researchers and practitioners are realizing that to truly affect health

they must address individual, social, and economic factors. Along with this realization there has

been a growing interest in working with communities to create healthful changes through

academic/practice/community research partnerships. As stated in the recent Institute of Medicine

report,[1] to work with communities it is important to understand research as an evolving

process. The report suggests that three types of research characterize this process: ³(1) current

proactive practice of academically driven research initiatives, (2) a more reactive practice for

designing research in response to the needs and input of community agencies, and (3) the

development of interactive research practices that involve both academic researchers and the

community as equal partners in all phases of a research project.´ [1] The first type of research,which will hereafter be called Type 1 research, typically involves the academician as the sole

inquirer. The academician determines the questions to be asked and defines the range of

acceptable answers. In the second type of research, hereafter called Type 2 research, non-

academicians assist in defining the question, but academicians still define the methods of inquiry

and the range of answers. Using the third type of research, hereafter called Type 3 or

community-based research, the community and academicians jointly define the questions to ask,

determine how to gather the answers, and decide what to do with the information that is gathered

(i.e., dissemination of information or action).

These different types of research are not simply a continuum, but rather are based on different

underlying assumptions or paradigms.[2] Therefore, using the first type of research process even

when seeking input from the members of the target community is not the same as engaging in the

latter types of research. Rather, to engage in community-based research (or Type 3 research) it is

necessary to create and maintain true partnerships among academicians, practitioners, and

community members.

While public health practitioners and community organizers have long realized the importance of

working with communities,[2] the development of research projects with community partners

utilizing Type 3 research methods is comparatively new. Type 3 research presents different

challenges and requires different skills than either Type 1 or Type 2 research. The development



of a set of principles of practice for engaging in Type 3 research projects can assist researchers in

developing, implementing, and evaluating their partnerships and their project activities.

This paper will examine one such academic/practice/community partnership, a family violence-

prevention project presently being conducted in rural Missouri. The paper will focus on the child

abuse± prevention component of this project, the Resource Mothers Program. The paper will

present an overview of the project and the principles of practice that guide the Resource Mothers

program activities. Specific examples of how these principles have been put into operation will

also be discussed.

Child abuse prevention

While it is difficult to get exact figures, available data suggest approximately one million

children were victims of abuse and neglect in 1994.[3] In Missouri alone, 17,105 children were

found to be victims of abuse and neglect during 1997. [4] National data indicate that parents are

the most frequent perpetrators of child abuse. [3] However, no single factor can be said to

account for child maltreatment and abuse. [5] As a result, the most effective prevention programs

are those that use an ecologic framework, e.g., attempting to create changes in some combination

of individual, family, community, societal, and cultural factors. [5]

Family support programs, particularly home visiting programs, attempt to prevent child

maltreatment and abuse by changing both individual and social factors. Studies have found that

these programs are most effective when they ³empower families to develop skills and knowledge

necessary to recognize their strengths and weaknesses, and to seek and effectively utilize

services.´[5] One recent study found that home visits during and for one year after pregnancy

resulted in a significant decrease in reports of child abuse and neglect. [6]

Whole Health Outreach

Whole Health Outreach (WHO) was formed in 1989 in rural Missouri as a collaborative effort

between local churches and the local health department. The project began when a group of local

residents became aware that they and their neighbors did not have access to a number of different

health and social services. The community decided to focus on what they had identified as one of



the most significant community concerns, family violence. WHO sought to decrease family

violence in rural Missouri through community outreach and support. WHO members include

individuals from local churches and religious organizations, a lawyer who has worked with

survivors of domestic violence, social service workers, an accountant, teachers, law enforcement

officials, and interested community members. The organization uses an ecologic framework,

addressing individual, social, community, organizational, and policy factors that influence family

violence. The efforts to create changes in local organizations and community-level factors

include working with social service agencies, law enforcement agencies, local health

departments, hospitals, child care centers, churches, and schools. The efforts to create changes in

individual and social factors include a residential shelter for individuals and families who need to

remove themselves from abusive situations, support groups and educational classes, and a

Resource Mothers program that provides pre- and post-natal home visits.

The collaboration between WHO and Saint Louis University School of Public Health began in

1993. The remainder of this paper will describe the principles of practice on which this

collaboration was based, and the challenges of putting these principles into operation in one

component of WHO programming, the Resource Mothers Program.

Principles of practice

Identify the best processes/ model to be used based on the nature of the issue and the

intended outcome


More often than not academicians and practitioners choose their method of conducting research

based on their familiarity with, and comfort with, various methodologies.[7] Most academic

degree programs focus on, and provide skills for, engaging in Type 1 rather than Type 3

research. In fact, many training programs may inadvertently convey a lack of respect for one

type of research or another. Therefore, one of the first challenges we face in conducting

academic/practice/community research or intervention projects is to determine the appropriate

model to be used based on the nature of the health concern and the intended outcome. For

example, one health concern may be the high rate of diabetes within a given population or



community. One outcome of interest may be to educate individuals who have just been

diagnosed with diabetes in the proper use of insulin. Alternately, one may wish to change dietary

habits and norms in a community so that there is a decreased risk of Type II diabetes. The first is

focused primarily on creating individual behavior change (with some potential need for changes

in social and community factors). Alternately, individual, social, community, economic, and

cultural factors influence eating habits. The optimal intervention for the first may be an

individualized approach, not a collaborative approach. While it may be beneficial to obtain input

from those with diabetes to effectively plan and implement the program, this input could be

incorporated into an effective proactive, academically driven approach. In contrast, changing

dietary habits involves addressing numerous factors that may more effectively be influenced by a

partnership approach (i.e., community-based research).


As described earlier, Whole Health Outreach identified a need and desire to decrease family

violence in rural Missouri. The literature in the field and the experience of the individuals and

organizations initially involved indicated that the etiology of family violence is multi-factorial

(including individual, social, and community factors). Members of WHO realized that

individuals with various expertise, from local and statewide organizations, needed to be included

in all aspects of the program to address these multiple factors. These individuals from differentorganizations assisted in the planning and implementation of various interventions. Some of

these interventions were started simultaneously at the outset of the project (e.g., the shelter and

counseling programs) while others were added later (e.g., educational programs in the schools).

Acknowledge the difference between community input and active community involvement


One of the assumptions of research involving partnerships is that community involvement is

beneficial. This benefit is derived from a process of gathering local beliefs and experiences and

using these to develop, implement and evaluate programs.[2] Community members provide more

accurate information, knowledge, and understanding of their own communities than outside

academicians have. This can lead to more precise development of theory, or local theory. [2, 8, 9



and 10] Local theory (theory grounded in the beliefs and experiences of community members) is

likely to lead to programs that are more effective than programs that are based on acontextual

theory. [2 and 8] This process of community involvement enhances the likelihood that research

and intervention activities will be socially and contextually appropriate and specific. [11]

Simply recognizing that community involvement is ³good´ does not, however, inform practice in

a meaningful way. The amount and nature of this involvement can vary significantly.[11] For

instance, a researcher may ask for community input to ensure that community members

understand the questions they are being asked. Or, an academician may ask community members

to determine whether media messages and the format of educational materials is appropriate for

the community. This type of involvement is more of a request for input than real community

involvement. As such, it is less likely to impact program effectiveness than more completeinvolvement in research activities because it does not take advantage of the process described

above. Input can enhance an academically driven program (Type 1 research), but it is not the

same as making full use of the partnership in creating a community-based research project (Type

3).


Whole Health Outreach programs were initiated by the community and the community continues

to be actively involved in the on-going development of program activities. The approach taken is

one in which all partners share in the various research and intervention activities including:

generating ideas for new projects, assisting in the development of these projects and grant

writing activities, assisting in reviewing assessment and programmatic materials, implementing

program activities, evaluating programs, and disseminating results through both written

publications and oral presentations.

This active involvement of all partners in the research and intervention activities requiressignificant changes in the way each partner typically conducts his/her work. For example,

academic partners need to relinquish some of the control usually associated with research

projects.[12] Community and practice partners need to be willing to share ideas and resources

with each other and academicians. Lastly, all partners need to allot more time to finish tasks, and

be willing to spend time assisting other partners in tasks that may not be of primary importance



to them. For example, community members may need to take time to share in the tasks

associated with writing papers, and academicians may need to take time to share in the tasks

associated with organizational planning.

Develop relationships based on mutual trust and respect


The capacity to engage in this type of community-based research partnership is based, to a large

extent, on each individual¶s capacity to develop relationships based on mutual trust and

respect.[2] Building this type of relationship requires a significant time commitment at the

beginning of the project (often before grant money is available) as well as during the grant

period. Researchers and community members must make this time commitment even when this

time is not fully compensated. Regular communication and information sharing is also critical to

relationship building and maintenance. If individuals within the academic, community, or

practice arena feel that decisions are being made without their consultation, or if they do not

know about the decisions at all, then the relationship, and the overall success of the research

project, is threatened.

Lastly, to build trusting and respectful relationships it is necessary to acknowledge that previous

projects may have been conducted in a way that was disrespectful of one of the partners.[2, 13

and 14] This history should not eliminate the possibility of future research and programs. Rather,

each partner is responsible for discussing both positive and negative experiences with previous

projects. More importantly, the partners need to work together to develop specific strategies to

avoid repeating previous mistakes, and regularly assess and address these issues. [2]


The relationships among the Whole Health Outreach academic, community, and practice

partners are based on mutual trust and respect. This is in part because the initial grant created a

true friendship between two individuals. This created patterns of communication that were able

to enhance the research project in spite of the long distances between the two sites



(approximately 150 miles). This friendship created an opening for relationships among the other

members within the academic and practice organizations.

Partners communicate frequently about project-related activities through the use of phones,

faxes, and regular site visits. In addition, these relationships are enhanced through: quarterly

partnership retreats that include social time as well as program planning and continuing

education; joint participation and inclusion in board meetings and workshops; and feedback

opportunities for the evaluation of program components, tools and program adjustments.

One of the challenges that the partnership now faces is that new project staff have been added to

all of the participating agencies. These new project staff need to create their own relationships

and communication patterns across organizations. Moreover, individuals withineach organization

need to establish their own relationships. These new relationships within and between

organizations have been difficult because the new members did not experience the initial stages

of the partnership. In addition, these new individuals were added because they offer something

new to the partnership. By definition they bring new perspectives and approaches to the project

that may or may not be consistent with those already created and agreed on by previous

partnership members. The partners all agree that the best way to use these resources is to see

each individual as bringing certain gifts. The challenge is to add these gifts to the existing ³mix´

in a way that honors and integrates the gifts, but does not violate the basic assumptions of the

program.

Acknowledge and honor different partner¶s ³agendas´


While each partner may be very willing to engage in an academic/practice/community

partnership, they may have very different ³agendas´ or reasons for their involvement. For

example, community members and practitioners may want to see increased access to training and

resources (including money and outside expertise). In addition, community members and

practitioners will likely want to see increased intervention activities. Academicians, on the other

hand, want to see that their contributions enhance their teaching, lead to grant opportunities and

publications, and improve community health. It is important to acknowledge and see some value



in each partner¶s perspectives and priorities. It is also important for each partner to feel

comfortable articulating these needs. Once articulated, everyone involved should make an effort

to meet the differing needs of the various partners.


The Whole Health Outreach/Resource Mothers Program reflects the importance acknowledging

the different priorities and agendas of each of the partners. The initial grant provided for

programs that were jointly developed by several community members and one faculty member.

As the project developed, the community group needed additional resources (financial

contributions and alternative skills and expertise) and the initial faculty member needed to focus

on other areas of her research agenda. New faculty and resources were sought in a way that

ensured that the academic and community partners would benefit from the expanded research

project. To maximize this benefit the new faculty members and the community jointly defined

the parameters of the expanded research project. These expanded parameters include a renewed

commitment to the intervention program in a way that has the potential to add new knowledge to

the field, and hence enhance both intervention activities and the potential for future publication.

Consider multidisciplinary approaches


If the issue or problem to be addressed is influenced by a number of different factors (e.g.,

individual, social, and community), then it is important that partnerships draw on expertise from

each of these different areas.[15] Because of the nature of most academic programs, this requires

bringing together individuals from multiple disciplines and perspectives, and often requires

multi-agency collaboration. [12 and 16] Working in these multidisciplinary teams can create

tension in part because one discipline¶s ideal practices and approaches may be not be valued by

other disciplines. In addition, each discipline has its own set of assumptions regarding the nature

of complex public health problems. To truly address problems that have multifactorial etiology,

academicians, practitioners, and community members are challenged to broaden their

perspectives, and see skills other than their own as complementary rather than competitive.




The Whole Health Outreach/Resource Mothers Program has included individuals with training in

statistics, education, health education, community organizing, social work, nursing, dentistry,

law, accounting, and spirituality. The interdisciplinary and multi-organizational partnership has

highlighted similarities and differences in the way we approach specific issues. The partnership

has also created an innovative, multi-faceted approach to addressing family violence.

For example, some partners focus on the problem of domestic violence and seek solutions to

specific problems (e.g., by providing health education information, medical care, or legal

services). For these partners, the central activity or purpose is to provide specific information and

services. Alternately, other partners engage in the project to enhance the community¶s capacity

to address its own needs. These partners focus on engaging individuals and the community as a

whole in problem solving activities.

Partners have not only different perceptions of the priority and intent of program activities, but

also different discipline-based ethics and expectations. For example, a nurse is bound by certain

licensing agreements that mandate reporting of drug use as it relates to suspected child abuse,

while a religious sister or clergy member may be obligated to maintain confidentiality.

Perhaps most critical for the success of the project is the recognition that each agency and

individual brings complementary, welcomed skills and perspectives to the project. Utilization of these multiple skills and perspectives has led to changes in the legal system, programs in the

schools, and family and individual support services. One of the most exciting aspects of the

current project is the opportunity to assess the efficacy and appropriateness of using health

education tools designed to create changes in individual behavior (tailored messages and a self-

management manual) within a lay health advisor approach. In other words, the project formally

bridges the gap that often exists between individual-directed interventions and community-based

or -directed efforts.

Pregnant women who enroll in the Resource Mother Program receive prenatal home visits from a

lay health advisor (resource mother). The visits can continue for up to one year after the birth.

The women visited learn about child development, diet, exercise, anger management, and

maternal role attainment. The new adaptation of the program will compare the outcomes of



women who received one of three different levels of the intervention: (1) Resource Mothers

visits alone; (2) visits combined with computer-generated print materials tailored for each

pregnant woman based on an assessment of her unique needs and interests; or (3) visits,

computer-tailored materials, plus education in self-management techniques. Each of these

additions brings in the expertise of different project partners.

Use evaluation strategies that are consistent with the overall approach taken in the

academic/practice/community partnership


A number of excellent articles and books review the key components of program evaluation in

general, and specifically with regard to community-based programs (such as

academic/practice/community partnerships).[17 and 18] These books and articles suggest that

one of the most important considerations is keeping evaluation consistent with the other aspects

of the partnership. In particular, all of the partners should be included not only in program design

and implementation, but also in evaluation activities. Community, practice and academic

partners may be involved in designing the evaluation approach and tools, analyzing the results,

and disseminating the information to the appropriate audiences. [17] It is also important to

choose methods and tools appropriate for the questions asked rather than merely using the

particular expertise available. [7 and 17] In addition, it is important to conduct process, impact,

and outcome evaluation and to include both qualitative and quantitative measures. [17 and 18] In

this vein, it is important to assess not only the research questions and intervention activities but

also the qualities of the partnership. [17]


The two broad goals of this project were to implement the specific intervention activities and to

establish and maintain the partnership. The evaluation activities therefore addressed the

partnership itself, the changes occurring in the academic arena, and the intervention activities

within the community.



The evaluation of the partnership itself involved documentation of specific activities and

interactions. These data were reviewed with attention paid to unmet or changing needs and how

current partners could address these needs by the addition of new partnership organizations, or

additional individuals within the existing organizations. This resulted in the training of additional

Resource Mothers, efforts to gain additional funding for particular programs or training, and the

addition of more faculty to the research project. The review of these data also highlighted where

linkages in the partnership were operating most and least effectively. For example, the

relationship between the Department of Health and the Resource Mothers in some communities

was excellent and in others the relationship was not as smooth. These relationships are

particularly critical to allow the Resource Mothers to recruit women into the programs.

The evaluation of the activities and changes in the academic arena included documenting thenumber and quality of presentations in classrooms, the number of interns in placements, and the

quality of the internships. The methods of documentation included written and verbal feedback.

Academic and community advisors also met to assess the quality of the placement and

suggestions for future internships.

The evaluation of the Resource Mothers program provides a good example of the types of

evaluation that can be conducted to evaluate community interventions. The initial program

activities were evaluated by systematically collecting residential, demographic, and

programmatic (e.g., number of visits and information covered in each visit) data for all women

enrolled in the Resource Mothers program. At the end of each year, these records were matched

to state birth and death certificate data obtained from the State Department of Health. The

preliminary analysis of these data indicated that women enrolled in the Resource Mothers

program had a fourfold reduction in low birthweight babies (<.05) controlling for known risk

factors, than women in the same region who did not take part in the Resource Mothers

Program.[19]

The evaluation of the Resource Mothers program also included qualitative interviews with

Resource Mothers and program participants. These interviews were conducted to assess the types

of support provided by the Resource Mothers and how this support affected the larger social

networks of the pregnant women. Initial analysis of this data indicated that Resource Mothers



provided emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support during the pregnancy and

after delivery of the child. The data also indicated that the provision of the multiple forms of

support was particularly important for first-time and younger mothers whose views differed from

those of their extended family in terms of how they wanted to deliver and raise their children.

The provision of social support by the Resource Mother was not intended to replace or

negatively affect other social ties. The interview data suggested that in general the social support

provided was not perceived as threatening by the participant, her partner, or her extended family.

In fact, most of the participants interviewed indicated that the Resource Mother¶s support

enhanced rather than took away from their primary relationships.[20]

The current intervention activities will require additional data collection. Women enrolled in the

Resource Mothers program in each county will be asked to complete pre- and post-interventionassessments, including an instrument designed to provide tailored messages to the women. These

instruments will be pretested with pregnant women in these communities. Once the instruments

have been modified as needed they will be administered to women enrolled in the Resource

Mothers Program. These data will be analyzed to determine the extent to which participants

changed knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. The assessment will also include measures

of social support, self-esteem, and control (e.g., mastery and self-efficacy). The primary analysis

will compare three levels of intervention: (1) the current Resource Mothers program (information

and home visits); (2) the Resource Mothers program plus computer-tailored preventive health

information given to each woman; and (3) the Resource Mothers program plus computer-

tailored preventive health information, and self-management and problem-solving skills. A

subsample of women in each of the counties will also be interviewed to evaluate program

activities (the benefits of participating and any suggestions they have for a change in future

programs).

Be aware of partnership maturation and associated transition periods


Academic/practice/community research partnerships change and mature over time. These

partnerships can be considered a type of coalition, and thus previous work in the field describing



the various stages of coalition development can be helpful in understanding the partnership

maturation process.a

Coalitions are said to go from initial formation, to planning, implementation, maintenance, and

institutionalization.[21 and 22] Each of these different stages may require attention to different

tasks and different aspects of the relationships within the partnership. For example, the formation

period may require an identification of decision-making processes while the implementation

phase may require more attention to the specific roles and responsibilities of each partner. [22]

After a partnership has been established and programs are initiated, the organizations in the

partnership may experience changes in staffing or organizational priorities. This may require

adjustments in partnership commitments and responsibilities.


The academic/practice/community partnership has matured over time. The partnership went

through initial phases of formation. As a first step in the formation of Whole Health Outreach,

individuals within the community came together and stated a joint commitment to developing

family violence-prevention programs. These individuals then joined with formal organizations

within (e.g., Department of Health, police, schools) and outside of the community (e.g., Saint

Louis University School of Public Health). This partnership then developed, implemented, and

refined various programs.

The stages delineated in previous work do not adequately reflect the partnership¶s evolutionary

process. Previous work indicates prerequisites to moving effectively from one stage of coalition

function to the next. For example, it is important to have decision-making processes in place

before designing and implementing specific program activities. While some of the initial

activities of WHO could be seen as linear (as previous literature suggests), later coalition

development and maturation could more accurately be described as a metamorphosis. The

change from a grassroots group interested in making some changes in its community to an

organization that has an annual budget, tax-exempt status, several properties, and permanent staff

was experienced not merely as development but as a significant change in structure and function.

This metamorphosis occurred consciously at some levels, and unconsciously at others. This



change influences the programs that are offered, and has forced the organization to determine if

the current staffing is adequate to address the changing needs. Perhaps more importantly this

dramatic change has caused initial group members to question how much change can occur

without losing the initial mission and vision of the organization.

Lastly, the metamorphosis has caused some in the organization to wonder about the utility and

appropriateness of sustainability and growth. Although efforts are being made to increase stable

funding streams, sustainability still requires grant money. As the organization grows there are,

therefore, a growing number of community members who rely on soft money for their

livelihood. Some have questioned if creating this dependence on soft money is appropriate and if

not, if it is appropriate for the organization to continue to grow.

The members of the partnership are struggling with what to do in this transitional stage. Should

the organization become a more formal structure, gathering additional resources to meet the

needs it has identified to date? Or, should there be two organizations: one with a focus on

grassroots involvement and responsiveness to the community and the other a more formally

organized, structured organization to address the needs that have been defined to date. The

community continues to drive these decisions; outside partners assist the community as they can

and offer resources where and when it seems appropriate.

Summary and conclusions

While there are no blueprints to direct researchers and practitioners who wish to engage in

academic/practice/community research partnerships, the principles of practice presented in this

paper provide some general guidance. In summary, these principles are:

Identify the best processes/model to be used based on the nature of the issue and the intendedoutcome.

Acknowledge the difference between community input and active community involvement.

Develop relationships based on mutual trust and respect.

Acknowledge and honor different partner¶s ³agendas.´

Consider multi-disciplinary approaches.



Use evaluation strategies that are consistent with the overall approach taken in theacademic/practice/community partnership.

Be aware of partnership maturation and associated transition periods.

Although these principles were derived from previous literature in the field of community-basedresearch and the experiences of individuals who have been involved in a research partnership,

three issues should be considered prior to applying these principles in future partnerships. First, it

is not sufficient to simply adopt one or more of these principles. These principles represent an

attempt to put into operation a processof engaging in community-based research. These

principles are interrelated, and work synergistically to improve research outcomes. For example,

a partnership based on mutual respect is likely to provide the basis for honoring each partner¶s

agenda. It is difficult to have one without the other. Therefore, while an academically driven

research or intervention project (Type 1) may be enhanced by adopting one or more of these

strategies, doing so does not necessarily make the project community-based research (Type 3).

A second consideration is that this list of principles is not exhaustive. Moreover, some principles

may be more important than other principles depending on the stage of the partnership, and the

stage of development of the organizations within the partnership.

Lastly, this list of principles is derived from previous literature and experiences in conducting

Type 3 research. However, the very nature of this type of research suggests that it is essential to

respond to the specific context in which one is working. Hence, while these principles may be

useful in guiding one¶s work they may not be appropriate in every setting.

Academic/practice/community research partnerships are gaining popularity. To be effective, it is

important to move toward using these partnerships to engage in community-based or Type 3

research.[15] However, as we begin to use these approaches it is important to examine not only

the outcomes of these research and intervention projects, but also to increase our understanding

of partnerships and how they affect our ability, to create more healthful communities.

Acknowledgements



The partnership described within this paper was funded by the Health Resources and Services

Administration. We thank Stephanie Starkloff Morgan and Fran Daniel for their comments on an

earlier draft.

References

1. Institute of Medicine, In: Linking Research and Public H ealth P ractice: A review of CDC¶ s

pro g ram of cent ers for research and d emon st ration of health promotion and di sease prevention

National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1997), p. 30.

2. B.A. Israel, A.J. Schulz, E.A. Parker and A.B. Becker, Review of community-based research:

Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public H ealth 19 (1998),

pp. 173±202. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (599)

3. US Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect,

Child malt reat ment 1994: Repor t s from the st at es t o the N ational C ent er on Child Abu se and

N e gl ect US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC (1996).

4. Citizens for Missouri¶s Children, KIDS COUNT in Mi ssour i, 1997 Dat a Book Children¶s Trust

Fund (1997).

5. N.D. Reppucci, P.A. Britner and J.L. WoolardIn: P reventing child abu se and ne gl ect through

parent education Paul H. Brooks Publishing, Baltimore, Maryland (1997), p. 20.

6. D.L. Olds, J. Eckenrode, C.R. Henderson et al., Long-term effects of home visitation on

maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. JAMA 278 8 (1997), pp. 637±643. View Record

in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (416)

7. M.K. Hugentobler, B.A. Israel and S.J. Schurman, An action research approach to workplace

health: Integrating methods. H ealth Educ Q 19 1 (1992), pp. 55±76. Full Text via CrossRef |

View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (49)

8. D.G. Altman, Sustaining interventions in community systems: on the relationship between

researchers and communities. H ealth P sychol 4

(1995), pp. 526±536. Abstract |F

ull Text viaCrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (131)

9. M. Elden and M. Levin, Cogenerative learning. In: W.F. Whyte Editor, P ar tici pat ory Action

Research Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1991), pp. 127±142.

10. Maguire P. Doing Participatory Research: A feminist approach. Amherst, MA: School of

Education, University of Massachusetts; 1987..



11. E.A. Baker and C.A. Brownson, Defining characteristics of community-based health

promotion programs. J Pub H ealth M ana g ement P ractice 4 2 (1998), pp. 1±9. View Record in

Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (8)

12. B.A. Israel, S.J. Schurman and M.K. Hugentobler, Conducting action research: relationships

between organization members and researchers. J A pplied Behav S ci 28 (1992), pp. 74±101. Full

Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (37)

13. J. Hatch, N. Moss, A. Saran, L. Presley-Cantrell and C. Mallory, Community research:

Partnership in Black Communities. Am J of P rev M ed 9 suppl (1993), pp. 27±31.

14. A.J. Schulz, E.A. Parker, B.A. Israel, A.B. Becker, B.J. Maciak and R. Hollis, Conducting a

participatory community-based survey for a community health intervention on Detroit¶s east

side. J Pub H ealth M ana g ement P ractice 4 2 (1998), pp. 10±24. View Record in Scopus | Cited

By in Scopus (39)

15. L.W. Green and M.A. Stoto, Linking research and public health practice: A vision for health

promotion and disease prevention research. Am J of P rev M ed 13 6 (1997), pp. 5±8. View

Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)

16. N.M. Clark and K.M. McLeroy, Creating capacity through health education: What we know

and what we don¶t. H ealth Educ Q 22 2 (1995), pp. 273±289. View Record in Scopus | Cited By

in Scopus (24)

17. B.A. Israel, K.M. Cummings, M.B. Dignan et al., Evaluation of health education programs:

Current assessment and future directions. H ealth Educ Q 22 3 (1995), pp. 364±389. View Record

in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (70)

18. R.M. Goodman, Principles and tools for evaluating community-based prevention and health

promotion programs. J Pub H ealth M ana g ement P ractice 4 2 (1997), pp. 37±48.

19. Homan SM, Flick LH, Schonhoff RM. Impact of rural Resource Mothers Program on

prenatal care. Obstet Gynecol (under review)..

20. Homan S, Baker EA, Spies M, Starkloff S. An evaluation study of the implementation of the

Resource Mothers program in a rural setting. (in progress)..

21. F.D. Butterfoss, R.M. Goodman and A. Wandersman, Community coalitions for prevention

and health promotion. H ealth Education Research 8 3 (1993), pp. 315±330. View Record in

Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (187)



22. P. Florin, R. Mitchell and J. Stevenson, Identifying training and technical assistance needs in

community coalitions: a developmental approach. H ealth Educ Research: Theory and P ractice 8

3 (1993), pp. 417±432. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (71)

23. E.A. Parker, E. Eng, B. Laraia, A. Ammerman, J. Dodds and L. Margolis, Coalition building

for prevention: Lessons learned from the North Carolina Community-based Pubic Health

Initiative. J Pub H ealth M ana g ement P ractice 4 2 (1998), pp. 25±36. View Record in Scopus |

Cited By in Scopus (23)

Address correspondence to: Elizabeth A. Baker, PhD, MPH, Saint Louis University,

Department of Community Health, 3663 Lindell Blvd., 63108

aParker, Eng, Laraia, et al.[23] defined coalitions as ³alliances among different sectors,

organizations, or constituencies for a common purpose.´

principles of practice for academic

Documents