4.4 Review

Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research

期刊

MILBANK QUARTERLY
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 163-214

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12184

关键词

community-academic partnership; collaboration; community-based participatory research; research design

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH [K01MH093477]
  2. Implementation Research Institute (IRI) at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis
  3. National Institute of Mental Health [R25MH080916]
  4. Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI), Department of Veterans Affairs Contract, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Health Services Research and Development Service

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Policy Points: Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research, to provide firsthand knowledge and insight. Based on our systematic review of major literature databases, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership (CAP), and a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines and strengthen the field. Interpersonal and operational factors that facilitate or hinder the collaborative process have been consistently identified, including trust among partners and respect among partners (facilitating interpersonal factors) and excessive time commitment (hindering operational factor). Once CAP processes and characteristics are better understood, the effectiveness of collaborative partner involvement can be tested. ContextCommunities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research. Community stakeholders can provide firsthand knowledge and insight, thereby increasing research relevance and feasibility. Despite the greater emphasis and use of community-academic partnerships (CAP) across multiple disciplines, definitions of partnerships and methodologies vary greatly, and no systematic reviews consolidating this literature have been published. The purpose of this article, then, is to facilitate the continued growth of this field by examining the characteristics of CAPs and the current state of the science, identifying the facilitating and hindering influences on the collaborative process, and developing a common term and conceptual definition for use across disciplines. MethodsOur systematic search of 6 major literature databases generated 1,332 unique articles, 50 of which met our criteria for inclusion and provided data on 54 unique CAPs. We then analyzed studies to describe CAP characteristics and to identify the terms and methods used, as well as the common influences on the CAP process and distal outcomes. FindingsCAP research spans disciplines, involves a variety of community stakeholders, and focuses on a large range of study topics. CAP research articles, however, rarely report characteristics such as membership numbers or duration. Most studies involved case studies using qualitative methods to collect data on the collaborative process. Although various terms were used to describe collaborative partnerships, few studies provided conceptual definitions. Twenty-three facilitating and hindering factors influencing the CAP collaboration process emerged from the literature. Outcomes from the CAPs most often included developing or refining tangible products. ConclusionsBased on our systematic review, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership, as well as a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines. In addition, CAP characteristics and methods should be reported more systematically to advance the field (eg, to develop CAP evaluation tools). We have identified the most common influences that facilitate and hinder CAPs, which in turn should guide their development and sustainment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据