OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed implementation research conducted in Indigenous communities in the Americas and the Pacific that focused on improving delivery of HIV preventive or treatment services. We highlight strengths and opportunities in the literature and outline principles for Indigenous-led, HIV-related implementation science.
RESULTS: We identified 31 studies, revealing a consistent emphasis on cultural tailoring of services to Indigenous communities. Common barriers to implementation included stigma, geographic limitations, confidentiality concerns, language barriers, and mistrust. Community involvement in intervention development and delivery emerged as a key facilitator, and nearly half of the studies used community-based participatory research methods. While behavioral HIV prevention, especially among Indigenous youth, was a major focus, there was limited research on biomedical HIV prevention and treatment. No randomized implementation trials were identified. The findings underscore the importance of community engagement, the need for interventions developed within Indigenous communities rather than merely adapted, and the value of addressing the social determinants of implementation success. Aligned to these principles, an indigenized implementation science could enhance the acceptability and reach of critical HIV preventive and treatment services in Indigenous communities while also honoring their knowledge, wisdom, and strength.

BACKGROUND: As patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has become increasingly common, research-based recommendations on its principles and impacts have been established. The specifics of conducting PPI are likely to differ when involving different groups. Family/informal carers for those with health conditions or disabilities have a lot to contribute to research, but instances of their involvement have yet to be reviewed.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and synthesize studies where family/informal carers have been involved in the research process, to develop an understanding of the benefits, barriers and facilitating factors.
METHODS: A search of five electronic databases was conducted using a combination of terms relating to carers, involvement and research. A grey literature search, expert consultation and hand-searching were also used. Following screening, data extraction and quality assessment, a narrative synthesis incorporating thematic analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 55 studies met the inclusion criteria, with diverse design and participatory approaches. Four themes were identified, relating to the outcomes, challenges, and practicalities of involving carers: (re) building relationships with carers; carers as equals not afterthoughts; carers have unique experiences; carers create change. Full involvement throughout the research was not always possible, due to barriers from the research world and responsibilities of the caring role. The literature demonstrated ways for carers to contribute in ways that suited them, maximizing their impact, while attending to relationships and power imbalances.
CONCLUSIONS: By summarizing the reported instances of carer involvement in research, this review brings together different examples of how successful research partnerships can be built with carers, despite various challenges. Carers are a heterogeneous group, and participatory approaches should be tailored to specific situations. Wider understanding of the challenges of conducting empowering research with carers, and the resources required to address these, are needed.
UNASSIGNED: The initial findings and themes were presented to a group of carers who had been involved in research and whose reflections informed the final synthesis.

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.
METHODS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: This conceptual framework offers a novel, stepwise approach and competencies for community-academic partners to successfully partner and conduct the research process equitably.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.

BACKGROUND: Most rural populations experience significant health disadvantage. Community-engaged research can facilitate research activities towards addressing health issues of priority to local communities. Connecting scholars with community based frontline practices that are addressing local health and medical needs helps establish a robust pipeline for research that can inform gaps in health provision. Rural Health Projects (RHPs) are conducted as part of the Doctor of Medicine program at the University of Queensland. This study aims to describe the geographic coverage of RHPs, the health topic areas covered and the different types of RHP research activities conducted. It also provides meaningful insight of the health priorities for local rural communities in Queensland, Australia.
METHODS: This study conducted a retrospective review of RHPs conducted between 2011 and 2021 in rural and remote Australian communities. Descriptive analyses were used to describe RHP locations by their geographical classification and disease/research categorisation using the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems - 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes and the Human Research Classification System (HRCS) categories.
RESULTS: There were a total of 2806 eligible RHPs conducted between 2011 and 2021, predominantly in Queensland (n = 2728, 97·2%). These were mostly conducted in small rural towns (under 5,000 population, n = 1044, 37·2%) or other rural towns up to 15,000 population (n = 842, 30·0%). Projects mostly addressed individual care needs (n = 1233, 43·9%) according to HRCS categories, or were related to factors influencing health status and contact with health services (n = 1012, 36·1%) according to ICD-10 classification.
CONCLUSIONS: Conducting community focused RHPs demonstrates a valuable method to address community-specific rural health priorities by engaging medical students in research projects while simultaneously enhancing their research skills.

Child obesity is a worldwide public health concern. In America, children from rural areas have greater odds of obesity in comparison to those from urban areas. Community-engaged research is important for all communities, particularly under-represented communities. This paper reports the results of a scoping review investigating community-engaged research in obesity prevention programs tested with school-aged children in rural America. A literature search of Medline Ovid was conducted to identify interventions reporting the results of obesity prevention interventions that promoted a healthy diet or physical activity (PA) behaviors to school-age children in rural communities of the United States (US). After title and abstract review, potentially relevant citations were further examined by assessing the full text. Each stage of review was conducted by two independent reviewers. Twelve studies met the inclusionary criteria and are included in this review. Most of the studies focused on elementary school participants (n = 7) and improving both diet and PA (n = 9). Out of the twelve studies, only five included the target audience in intervention development or implementation. The most popular type of community engagement was community participation (n = 4). This review revealed that community-engaged research is under-utilized in obesity prevention interventions tested with school-aged children in rural US communities.

BACKGROUND: Participatory health research (PHR) as a research paradigm, guides the research process and strives to achieve positive change in society in the interest of people\'s health. In this scoping review, PHR will be used as an umbrella term considering a wide range of collaborative research approaches in the health context. PHR is conducted \'with\' or \'by\' those it intends to benefit, as opposed to \'on\' and \'for\' them. Their involvement throughout the research process seeks to shift power and decision-making from where they traditionally lay within academia toward community, patient and public end-users. Research cannot be truly participatory without concurrently addressing power dynamics within the partnership and power imbalances in decision making. Therefore, power sharing can be defined as a major factor in building effective academic-community collaborations. This scoping review aims to identify, clarify, and map existing literature on power and power sharing in PHR from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Specifically, we will explore how power is conceptualised throughout the literature, and how power and power sharing are applied and addressed in real-life PHR partnerships.
METHODS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewer\'s Manual. This scoping review will consider both empirical and non-empirical research that report on understanding power and power sharing in participatory health research partnerships. All appropriate studies will be retrieved from the following five electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, SocIndex. This review will be limited to articles published in English and from January 1998 to March 2024. As the scoping review aims to capture more than peer-reviewed and published literature, it will also include grey literature such as theses and dissertations, reports, conference proceedings, and editorials. Data from the included literature will be extracted based on the data extraction tool, defined in advance.
BACKGROUND: As primary data will not be collected, ethical approval is not required to conduct the scoping review. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) using barbershop interventions is an emerging approach to address health disparities and promote health equity. Barbershops serve as trusted community settings for health education, screening services, and referrals. This narrative mini-review provides an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding CBPR employing barbershop interventions and explores the potential for big data involvement to enhance the impact and reach of this approach in combating chronic disease. CBPR using barbershop interventions has shown promising results in reducing blood pressure among Black men and improving diabetes awareness and self-management. By increasing testing rates and promoting preventive behaviors, barbershop interventions have been successful in addressing infectious diseases, including HIV and COVID-19. Barbershops have also played roles in promoting cancer screening and increasing awareness of cancer risks, namely prostate cancer and colorectal cancer. Further, leveraging the trusted relationships between barbers and their clients, mental health promotion and prevention efforts have been successful in barbershops. The potential for big data involvement in barbershop interventions for chronic disease management offers new opportunities for targeted programs, real-time monitoring, and personalized approaches. However, ethical considerations regarding privacy, confidentiality, and data ownership need to be carefully addressed. To maximize the impact of barbershop interventions, challenges such as training and resource provision for barbers, cultural appropriateness of interventions, sustainability, and scalability must be addressed. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term impact, cost-effectiveness, and best practices for implementation. Overall, barbershops have the potential to serve as key partners in addressing chronic health disparities and promoting health equity.

OBJECTIVE: To review empirical and peer-reviewed scholarly articles incorporating community-based participatory research approaches and examining discourses of how power differentials are interrogated, negotiated, and redressed within the partnerships using scoping review methodology following The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).
METHODS: Articles were identified across five online databases: Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science.
METHODS: Keywords used in the search strategy were (\"Community-Based Participatory Research\" OR \"Participa-tory Action Research\"). Peer-reviewed scholarly articles discussing in-depth power differentials within the partnership published in English between 2010 and 2020 were included.
RESULTS: Findings indicate scholars use critical reflexive qualitative methodologies to recognize and raise relevant questions of power issues between researchers and community stakeholders. Examination of individual biases, assumptions, and exertion of hierarchical top-down power is identified extensively. There is limited analysis on institutional and interdependent power. As a result of raising questions regarding power issues, individual actions to address emerging tensions and conflicts were reported. However, discussions on researchers\' efforts to effect institutional and structural changes to redress power imbalances were limited.
CONCLUSIONS: Building strong and equitable participatory action research collaborations between researchers and community stakeholders remains an arena of continuous struggle. This review offers some insights and relevant implications to better address power issues within participatory action research partnerships and inform the work of professionals engaged in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health promotion initiatives and policies.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: In the context of health research in Canada, various terms and labels have been employed to reference the Black population. This practice has had the unintended consequence of diminishing the comparability and efficiency of studies. Furthermore, using a broad term such as \'Black\' may fail to encompass the diversity and intricacy of the ethnocultural backgrounds of people who are racialised as such. It may also obscure the subtleties of their experiences and health outcomes. This study aims to examine how health researchers have defined Black within the scope of their work and different labels used to identify the Black population in Canada.
METHODS: We have developed and employed a comprehensive and sensitive search strategy to identify articles concerning the health and wellness of the Black population in Canada. Both peer-reviewed and grey literature will be searched. Original articles published in both English and French will be included. The screening process will consist of two stages: the title and abstract screening, followed by a thorough examination of full-text articles. Additionally, single citation tracking and manual search of reference lists will be conducted. Study characteristics and relevant information on the definition of the Black population will be extracted, followed by reflective thematic analysis and presentation of the key findings.
BACKGROUND: This review will not require ethical approval. We will disseminate the results through meetings with stakeholders. From the beginning, a knowledge translation approach was decided upon following consultation with citizen researchers and community champions. Our findings will also be disseminated through oral and poster presentations, peer-reviewed publications, and social media.