3.8 Article

The Process of Engaging Members From Two Underserved Populations in the Development of Interventions to Promote the Uptake of the HPV Vaccine

期刊

HEALTH PROMOTION PRACTICE
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 443-453

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1524839914559776

关键词

community-engaged research; HPV vaccine; cervical cancer health disparities

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health [R21CA152803, P50CA105632, P30CA016058]
  2. Merck Sharp Dohme Corp.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We describe a community-engaged research process used to develop multilevel interventions (caregivers, providers, system) to improve the uptake of human papillomavirus vaccine among adolescents by partnering with members from two underserved populations in Ohio. We began by conducting focus groups to better understand the knowledge and attitudes of caregivers and providers about the human papillomavirus vaccine and to develop teams of community members to assist with development of the interventions. The process continued with conducting writing sessions to determine the content and format of the interventions, and initial feedback was obtained during review sessions to refine the interventions prior to implementation. Using this approach, we were able to consider contextual factors that made the interventions more acceptable and relevant to members of the priority populations. Challenges included development and maintenance of a team of community members to participate in the entire intervention development process, rejection of ideas presented by academic researchers, the need to balance community members' suggestions with what was known from evidence-based research, and the time, cost, and effort associated with partnering with community members. The benefits, however, outweigh the challenges associated with using a community-engaged research process to develop interventions aimed at reducing cancer disparities among underserved populations.

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

3.8
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