The Bidirectional Engagement and Equity (BEE) Research Framework to Guide Community-Academic Partnerships: Developed From a Narrative Review and Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives
- PMID: 39087753
- PMCID: PMC11292665
- DOI: 10.1111/hex.14161
The Bidirectional Engagement and Equity (BEE) Research Framework to Guide Community-Academic Partnerships: Developed From a Narrative Review and Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives
Erratum in
-
Erratum to: "The Bidirectional Engagement and Equity (BEE) Research Framework to Guide Community-Academic Partnerships: Developed From a Narrative Review and Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives".Health Expect. 2024 Oct;27(5):e70031. doi: 10.1111/hex.70031. Health Expect. 2024. PMID: 39254315 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Abstract
Background: The engagement of community partners in equitable partnerships with academic teams is necessary to achieve health equity. However, there is no standardized approach to support bidirectional engagement among research stakeholders in the context of partnership equity at each phase of the research process.
Objective: We describe the development of a systematic framework along with competencies and tools promoting bidirectional engagement and equity within community-academic partnerships at each phase of the research process.
Design: We conducted a four-step research process between November 2020 and December 2023 for framework development: (1) a narrative literature review; (2) expansion of existing bidirectional, equitable framework; (3) a scientific review with two groups of cognitive interviews (five community engagement researchers and five community leaders and members); and (4) three community-based organization leader focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus group data.
Results: Using results of each step, the framework was iteratively developed, yielding four phases of the bidirectional engagement and equity (BEE) research framework: Relationship building and assessment of goals and resources (Phase I); form a community-academic partnership based on shared research interests (may include multilevel stakeholders) (Phase II); develop a research team comprising members from each partnering organization (Phase III); and implement the six-step equitable research process (Phase IV). Bidirectional learning and partnership principles are at the core of the partnership, particularly in Phases II-IV. Competencies and tools for conducting an equitable, engaged research process were provided.
Discussion: This conceptual framework offers a novel, stepwise approach and competencies for community-academic partners to successfully partner and conduct the research process equitably.
Conclusion: The BEE research framework can be implemented to standardize the conduct of an equitable, engaged research process within a community-academic partnership, while improving knowledge and trust across partners and, ultimately, an increased return on investment and sustainability to benefit both partners in the area of health outcomes and ultimately health equity.
Patient or public contribution: The development of this framework was co-led with a community organization in which two leaders in the organization were equitably involved in each phase of the research process, including grant development, study design, participant recruitment, protocol development for focus groups and community and researcher review, framework design and content and dissemination of this manuscript as a co-author. For grant development, the community leader completed the give-get grid components for them as a partner. They also wrote up their lived experience in the research process for the progress report. For the focus groups, one community leader co-led the focus group with the academic partner. For the narrative review, the community leaders did not actively conduct the narrative review but observed the process through the academic partners. One community leader wrote the section 'relationship building' and 'bidirectional learning' sections with the assistance of the academic partner, while they both equally provided input on other sections of the manuscript alongside academic partners. The community leaders have extensive experience in leading programmes, along with partnering with researchers to address health equity issues and improve health outcomes.
Keywords: bidirectional; community‐based participatory research (CBPR); community‐engaged research (CeNR) framework; community–academic partnership; conceptual framework; equity.
© 2024 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
Dr. Jennifer Cunningham‐Erves is an education consultant and advisory panel member for MERCK. She is also an education consultant for the Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research. These companies had no role in the development, writing or decision to publish this article. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Enhancing Capacity of Community-Academic Partnerships to Achieve Health Equity: Results From the CBPR Partnership Academy.Health Promot Pract. 2020 Jul;21(4):552-563. doi: 10.1177/1524839918818830. Epub 2018 Dec 29. Health Promot Pract. 2020. PMID: 30596283 Free PMC article.
-
Building Research for Academic and Community Equity (BRACE): A Toolkit for Community Research Partnerships.Health Promot Pract. 2025 Mar;26(2):213-218. doi: 10.1177/15248399231221157. Epub 2023 Dec 28. Health Promot Pract. 2025. PMID: 38153025
-
The Radical Welcome Engagement Restoration Model and Assessment Tool for Community-Engaged Partnerships.Health Promot Pract. 2025 May;26(3):496-506. doi: 10.1177/15248399231223744. Epub 2024 Jan 31. Health Promot Pract. 2025. PMID: 38293773
-
A Participatory, Mixed Methods Approach to Define and Measure Partnership Synergy in Long-standing Equity-focused CBPR Partnerships.Am J Community Psychol. 2020 Dec;66(3-4):427-438. doi: 10.1002/ajcp.12447. Epub 2020 Aug 3. Am J Community Psychol. 2020. PMID: 32744781 Free PMC article. Review.
-
A review of reviews on principles, strategies, outcomes and impacts of research partnerships approaches: a first step in synthesising the research partnership literature.Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 May 25;18(1):51. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9. Health Res Policy Syst. 2020. PMID: 32450919 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Community-Engaged Approach to Improve Food Access and Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables in a Rural Appalachian Community.Nutrients. 2025 Jan 24;17(3):431. doi: 10.3390/nu17030431. Nutrients. 2025. PMID: 39940289 Free PMC article.
-
Through the lens of Good Participatory Practice: Findings and lessons learned from the healthcare worker subcommittee of the COVID-19 Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes Registry.J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Dec 12;9(1):e9. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.668. eCollection 2025. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024. PMID: 39830611 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Israel B., Eng E., Schulz A., and Parkered E. A., ed., Methods for Community‐Based Participatory Research for Health (San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass, 2013).
-
- Wallerstein N., Duran B., Oetzel J., and Minklered M., eds., Community‐Based Participatory Research for Health: Advancing Social and Health Equity (San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass, 2018).
-
- Oetzel J. G., Boursaw B., Magarati M., et al., “Exploring Theoretical Mechanisms of Community‐Engaged Research: A Multilevel Cross‐Sectional National Study of Structural and Relational Practices in Community‐Academic Partnerships,” International Journal for Equity in Health 21, no. 1 (2022): 59. - PMC - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- This work was supported in part by the National Cancer Institute (Grant Numbers K01CA237748 and U54CA163072) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) (5UL1TR0002243).
- K01 CA237748/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- UL1 TR002243/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States
- U54 CA163072/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- U54 MD007586/MD/NIMHD NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources