Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Sep 6;28(Suppl 2):357-364.
doi: 10.18865/ed.28.S2.357. eCollection 2018.

Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study

Thomas R Belin  1   2   3 , Andrea Jones  4 , Lingqi Tang  2   3 , Bowen Chung  2   3   5 , Susan E Stockdale  2   6 , Felica Jones  4 , Aziza Wright  4 , Cathy D Sherbourne  7 , Judy Perlman  7 , Esmeralda Pulido  8 , Michael K Ong  6   9 , James Gilmore  10 , Jeanne Miranda  2   3 , Elizabeth Dixon  11 , Loretta Jones  4 , Kenneth B Wells  2   3   7   12
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Maintaining Internal Validity in Community Partnered Participatory Research: Experience from the Community Partners in Care Study

Thomas R Belin et al. Ethn Dis. .

Abstract

Objective: With internal validity being a central goal of designed experiments, we seek to elucidate how community partnered participatory research (CPPR) impacts the internal validity of public health comparative-effectiveness research.

Methods: Community Partners in Care (CPIC), a study comparing a community-coalition intervention to direct technical assistance for disseminating depression care to vulnerable populations, is used to illustrate design choices developed with attention to core CPPR principles. The study-design process is reviewed retrospectively and evaluated based on the resulting covariate balance across intervention arms and on broader peer-review assessments. Contributions of the CPIC Council and the study's design committee are highlighted.

Results: CPPR principles contributed to building consensus around the use of randomization, creating a sampling frame, specifying geographic boundaries delimiting the scope of the investigation, grouping similar programs into pairs or other small blocks of units, collaboratively choosing random-number-generator seeds to determine randomized intervention assignments, and addressing logistical constraints in field operations. Study protocols yielded samples that were well-balanced on background characteristics across intervention arms. CPIC has been recognized for scientific merit, has drawn attention from policymakers, and has fueled ongoing research collaborations.

Conclusions: Creative and collaborative fulfillment of CPPR principles reinforced the internal validity of CPIC, strengthening the study's scientific rigor by engaging complementary areas of knowledge and expertise among members of the investigative team.

Keywords: CPIC; CPPR; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Depression; Health Service; Randomization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: None declared.

References

    1. Rubin DB. Bayesian inference for causal effects: the role of randomization. Ann Stat. 1978;6(1):34-58. 10.1214/aos/117634406410.1214/aos/1176344064 - DOI - DOI
    1. Holland PW. Statistics and causal inference (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc. 1986;81(396):945-960. 10.1080/01621459.1986.10478354 - DOI
    1. Minkler M, Wallerstein N. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2003.
    1. Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, eds. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass; 2005.
    1. Jones L, Wells K. Strategies for academic and clinician engagement in community-participatory partnered research. JAMA. 2007;297(4):407-410. 10.1001/jama.297.4.407 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms