Community-Campus Partnerships for Health: Making a Positive Impact

Offers pragmatic insights from diverse community-campus partnerships, service-learning initiatives, and workforce diversity efforts across the country, including communities from the foundation's Community Voices initiative

The Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative: A National Change Initiative Focused on Faculty Roles and Rewards

This issue of Metropolitan Universities includes papers emanating from the work of the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, a three-year (2004-2007) initiative designed to build capacity for community-engaged scholarship (CES) in health professional schools. As the core principles and challenges of CES are similar across disciplines, readers will find the Collaborative\u27 s processes, products and outcomes relevant to any institutional context. This paper presents the rationale and context for the Collaborative; describes its institutional change model, key components, and lessons learned; and introduces the Faculty for the Engaged Campus initiative that builds from the Collaborative\u27 s work

Service-Learning in Nursing: A Bibliography with Published Abstracts

The following list of books and peer-reviewed publications will provide direction and useful information for developing service-learning programs in nursing. The list is not intended to be exhaustive, but reflects a compilation of materials recommended by the Partners in Caring and CommW1ity Program, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. Resources authored by PCC team members, mentors or advisors are denoted with a *. The PCC program is funded by the Helene Fuld Trust, HSBC, Trustee. Resources authored by participants in the Health Professions Schools in Service to the Nation Program (HPSISN), a national demonstration program of service-learning in the health professions that preceded the PCC program, are denoted with a †. HPSISN received funding from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Corporation for National Service

Rethinking Peer Review: Expanding the Boundaries for Community-Engaged Scholarship

Peer review in the academic arena is the evaluation of a scholar or a scholarly work by peers— typically, qualified members of the scholar’s discipline or profession with similar or greater competence, expertise, or rank. Peer review serves as a mechanism of self-regulation within a field or an institution in order to assure quality and may be applied to a product of scholarship, to scholars and their bodies of work, or to programs and organizations. Special considerations arise when peer review is undertaken in the context of community-engaged scholarship (CES), since CES generally involves partners outside the academy, and the typical concerns of peer review (such as rigorous methods, participant risks and benefits, and significance of findings for the field) are complemented by equivalent and sometimes greater concerns for the quality of the engagement process, community- level ethical considerations, and benefit to the community. This article, authored by some of the founding members of the Working Group on Rethinking Peer Review, explores these issues and invites readers to contribute to this discussion by considering questions about the appropriateness of conventional peer review mechanisms and who should be considered “peers” in reviewing products of CES and the work of community-engaged scholars. The Working Group hopes others will initiate discussions within their own institutions, professional associations, journals, and other settings to debate the notion of peer review and determine if expanded concepts are feasible. Through these various activities, the authors hope to begin seeing changes in the peer review process that embrace community expertise and enhance the quality and impact of CES.

Models for Faculty Development: What Does It Take to be a Community-Engaged Scholar?

Community-engaged scholarship (CES) is gaining legitimacy in higher education. However, challenges of institutionalizing and sustaining it as a core value remain. Significant barriers exist for faculty choosing to incorporate CES into their teaching and research. Faculty development programs are a key mechanism for advancing faculty skills as well as increasing institutional support. This paper provides a framework and set of competencies for faculty pursuing CES, developed by the Faculty Development Workgroup of the Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative. Examples of promising faculty development programs already underway and guidance for new programs are also offered

Assessing the outcomes of participatory research: protocol for identifying, selecting, appraising and synthesizing the literature for realist review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Participatory Research (PR) entails the co-governance of research by academic researchers and end-users. End-users are those who are affected by issues under study (<it>e.g.</it>, community groups or populations affected by illness), or those positioned to act on the knowledge generated by research (<it>e.g.</it>, clinicians, community leaders, health managers, patients, and policy makers). Systematic reviews assessing the generalizable benefits of PR must address: the diversity of research topics, methods, and intervention designs that involve a PR approach; varying degrees of end-user involvement in research co-governance, both within and between projects; and the complexity of outcomes arising from long-term partnerships.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We addressed the above mentioned challenges by adapting realist review methodology to PR assessment, specifically by developing inductively-driven identification, selection, appraisal, and synthesis procedures. This approach allowed us to address the non-uniformity and complexity of the PR literature. Each stage of the review involved two independent reviewers and followed a reproducible, systematic coding and retention procedure. Retained studies were completed participatory health interventions, demonstrated high levels of participation by non-academic stakeholders (<it>i.e.</it>, excluding studies in which end-users were not involved in co-governing throughout the stages of research) and contained detailed descriptions of the participatory process and context. Retained sets are being mapped and analyzed using realist review methods.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The librarian-guided search string yielded 7,167 citations. A total of 594 citations were retained after the identification process. Eighty-three papers remained after selection. Principle Investigators (PIs) were contacted to solicit all companion papers. Twenty-three sets of papers (23 PR studies), comprising 276 publications, passed appraisal and are being synthesized using realist review methods.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The systematic and stage-based procedure addressed challenges to PR assessment and generated our robust understanding of complex and heterogeneous PR practices. To date, realist reviews have focussed on evaluations of relatively uniform interventions. In contrast our PR search yielded a wide diversity of partnerships and research topics. We therefore developed tools to achieve conceptual clarity on the PR field, as a beneficial precursor to our theoretically-driven synthesis using realist methods. Findings from the ongoing review will be provided in forthcoming publications.</p

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health: An Overview

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health: An Overvie