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
. 2022 May 26;22(1):707.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08062-7.

Process evaluation of an academic-community-government partnership to reduce liver diseases attributable to hepatitis B virus

Affiliations

Process evaluation of an academic-community-government partnership to reduce liver diseases attributable to hepatitis B virus

Daisy Le et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Racial/ethnic minorities have higher incidence and mortality rates of liver cancer, or hepatocellular carcinoma, than non-Hispanic Whites. As such, the Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan Area Hepatitis B Virus (WB-HBV) Demonstration Project, a community-based participatory research (CBPR)-driven academic-community-government (ACG) partnership, was established in 2019 to address disparities and implement strategies to improve the HBV screening and vaccination infrastructure for at-risk communities. CBPR is a partnership of community members, organizational leaders, and academic researchers with a common aim to collectively share and contribute their input at every phase of the project. Herein, we describe the process evaluation of the WB-HBV Project and extract themes and insights to benefit future ACG partnerships and community-engaged research. The process evaluation has been conducted to determine whether CBPR-driven partnership and programmatic activities have been implemented as intended and have resulted in building expanded research capacity for future ACG partnership HBV community-level initiatives.

Methods: A WB-HBV Project Task Force was convened and comprised of eight organizations: four community organizations, three government organizations, and one academic institution. Through a mixed-methods process evaluation, an online survey and key informant interviews were conducted to provide context for program implementation barriers and facilitators. Descriptive statistics were conducted, and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically coded.

Results: The survey was completed by 14 of 20 partnership members (70.0%): two academic, eight community, and four government members. Partnership members showed general agreement across 14 domains: organization and structure of meetings; trust; decisions; impact; general satisfaction; strategic planning; ACG policy impact; community-based participatory research and government; participation in meetings; assessment of participation; partnership operations and capacity; communication; challenges/limitations associated with ACG involvement; and benefits compared to challenges associated with ACG involvement. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 of the 20 members (75.0%): two academic, nine community, and four government members. Four themes emerged: partnership involvement, project goals and accomplishments, project challenges and barriers, and partnership involvement in government or policy.

Conclusions: The process evaluation presents insights into developing strategies to enhance partnership functioning and increase the ability of present and future ACG partnerships to improve community health outcomes.

Keywords: Community health partnerships; Community health research; Community-based participatory research; Health disparities; Health outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Interview guide

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Israel BA, Coombe CM, Cheezum RR, Schulz AJ, McGranaghan RJ, Lichtenstein R, et al. Community-based participatory research: a capacity-building approach for policy advocacy aimed at eliminating health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(11):2094–2102. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.170506. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Unertl KM, Schaefbauer CL, Campbell TR, Senteio C, Siek KA, Bakken S, Veinot TC. Integrating community-based participatory research and informatics approaches to improve the engagement and health of underserved populations. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):60–73. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv094. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(Suppl 1):S40–S46. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Brown QL, Elmi A, Bone L, Stillman F, Mbah O, Bowie JV, et al. Community engagement to address cancer health disparities: a process EVALUATION using the partnership self-assessment tool. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2019;13(1):97–104. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2019.0012. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Islami F, Miller KD, Siegel RL, Fedewa SA, Ward EM, Jemal A. Disparities in liver cancer occurrence in the United States by race/ethnicity and state. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(4):273–289. doi: 10.3322/caac.21402. - DOI - PubMed