BACKGROUND: Despite the extensive use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) in health-related projects, there is limited work on how CBPR processes result in outcomes, especially in household and ambient air pollution (HAAP) research. This study explores the reflections of key informants on factors that shape the implementation and outcomes of CBPR in HAAP projects.
METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 key stakeholders, including academic researchers, non-governmental organisation administrators, a policymaker, and community members. All interviewees have experience in CBPR projects. Interviews were analysed using framework analysis, and findings were mapped to Wallerstein et al.\'s CBPR conceptual model, which consists of four constructs: context, partnership processes, intervention and research, and outcomes.
RESULTS: The findings are described under two main categories: \'barriers to participation\' and \'good practices for effective CBPR design and implementation\'. Relevant sub-categories were barriers at the structural, research, community, and individual levels. Suggestions for good practices included respect, cultural humility, trust, effective communication, suitable and affordable interventions such as improved cookstoves, appropriate participatory research tools, and gratuity for the community\'s time.
CONCLUSIONS: Key informants\' perspectives identified factors supported by the CBPR model to inform the design and implementation of the CBPR approach. The add-ons to some of the model\'s factors, such as intra-community dynamics, give value to the informants\' knowledge to support community-research partnerships and improve outcomes in HAAP intervention projects. Addressing these factors at the design stage and reporting CBPR evaluation could deepen the understanding of community-research partnerships.

BACKGROUND: Addressing Indigenous food security and food sovereignty calls for community-driven strategies to improve access to and availability of traditional and local food. Participatory approaches that integrate Indigenous leadership have supported successful program implementation. Learning Circles: Local Healthy Food to School is a participatory program that convenes a range of stakeholders including food producers, educators and Knowledge Keepers to plan, implement and monitor local food system action. Pilot work (2014-2015) in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia (BC), showed promising results of the Learning Circles (LC) approach in enhancing local and traditional food access, knowledge and skills among youth and adolescents. The objective of the current evaluation was therefore to examine the process of scaling-up the LC vertically within the Haida Nation; and horizontally across three diverse First Nations contexts: Gitxsan Nation, Hazelton /Upper Skeena, BC; Ministikwan Lake Cree Nation, Saskatchewan; and Black River First Nation, Manitoba between 2016 and 2019.
METHODS: An implementation science framework, Foster-Fishman and Watson\'s (2012) ABLe Change Framework, was used to understand the LC as a participatory approach to facilitate community capacity building to strengthen local food systems. Interviews (n = 52), meeting summaries (n = 44) and tracking sheets (n = 39) were thematically analyzed.
RESULTS: The LC facilitated a collaborative process to: (1) build on strengths and explore ways to increase readiness and capacity to reclaim traditional and local food systems; (2) strengthen connections to land, traditional knowledge and ways of life; (3) foster community-level action and multi-sector partnerships; (4) drive actions towards decolonization through revitalization of traditional foods; (5) improve availability of and appreciation for local healthy and traditional foods in school communities; and (6) promote holistic wellness through steps towards food sovereignty and food security. Scale-up within Haida Gwaii supported a growing, robust local and traditional food system and enhanced Haida leadership. The approach worked well in other First Nations contexts, though baseline capacity and the presence of champions were enabling factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight LC as a participatory approach to build capacity and support iterative planning-to-action in community food systems. Identified strengths and challenges support opportunities to expand, adopt and modify the LC approach in other Indigenous communities with diverse food systems.

BACKGROUND: Participatory approaches have become a widely applied research approach. Despite their popularity, there are many challenges associated with the evaluation of participatory projects. Here we describe an evaluation of a community-based participatory research study of underserved communities in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam at risk for hepatitis C virus. The goals of our evaluation were to explore the main benefits and challenges of implementing and participating in a participatory study and to describe study impacts.
METHODS: We conducted two meetings with leaders and members of the participating groups followed by in-depth interviews with 10 participants. We then held a dissemination meeting with over 70 participants, including the representatives of each group, researchers from non-governmental organizations (community-based, national and international), and govenrment officials from the Vietnam Ministry of Health and the Department of Health of HCMC.
RESULTS: Results include four categories where we describe first the participatory impacts, followed by the collaborative impacts. Then we describe the benefits and challenges of creating and belonging to one of the groups, from members\' and leaders\' points of view. Finally, we describe the key suggestions that participants provided for future research.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the evaluation approach led to both a research reflection on the \'success\' of the project and enabled participants themselves to reflect on the outcomes and benefits of the study from their point of view.
Participatory approaches in research aim to include participants in an array of aspects of the study, including developing research questions, collecting data, conducting analysis, etc. It has become a more popular method, however there are still challenges surrounding the evaluation of these projects. Here we describe an evaluation of a community-based participatory research study of underserved communities in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), Vietnam at risk for hepatitis C virus. The goals of the evaluation were to discuss and explore the main benefits and challenges with those who participated, as well as assess study impacts. To conduct the evaluation, we conducted two meetings with leaders and members of the participating groups followed by interviews with 10 people who were involved. The evaluation results included four categories including impacts for members as well as wider impacts in the community. Then we describe the benefits and challenges of creating and belonging to one of the groups, from members’ and leaders’ points of view. Finally, we describe the key suggestions that participants provided for future research. In conclusion, the evaluation approach led to both a research reflection on the ‘success’ of the project and enabled participants themselves to reflect on the outcomes and benefits of the study from their point of view.

Intersectoral collaborations are recommended as effective strategies to reduce health inequalities. People most affected by health inequalities, as are people living in poverty, remain generally absent from such intersectoral collaborations. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) projects can be leveraged to better understand how to involve people with lived experience to support both individual and community empowerment. In this paper, we offer a critical reflection on a CBPR project conducted in public housing in Québec, Canada, that aimed to develop intersectoral collaboration between tenants and senior executives from four sectors (housing, health, city and community organizations). This single qualitative case study design consisted of fieldwork documents, observations and semi-structured interviews. Using the Emancipatory Power Framework (EPF) and the Limiting Power Framework (LPF), we describe examples of types of power and resistance shown by the tenants, the intersectoral partners and the research team. The discussion presents lessons learned through the study, including the importance for research teams to reflect on their own power, especially when aiming to reduce health inequalities. The paper concludes by describing the limitations of the analyses conducted through the EPF-LPF frameworks and suggestions to increase the transformative power of future studies.

OBJECTIVE: To codesign safety-netting strategies for primary and emergency care settings by integrating the experiences and ideas of patients, carers and clinicians.
METHODS: A codesign process involving two focus group discussions, eight individual interviews and five workshops. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis and reported using the Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research guidelines.
METHODS: Primary and emergency care in Sweden, focusing on the Stockholm region.
METHODS: 7 (5 women) individuals with patient expertise, 1 (man) individual with carer expertise, 18 (12 women) individuals with clinical expertise.
RESULTS: Three main categories reflecting strategies for applying safety-netting were developed: first, conveying safety-netting advice, which involves understanding patient concerns, tailoring communication and using appropriate modalities for communicating; second, ensuring common understanding, which involves summarising information, asking a teach-back question and anticipating questions post consultation; and third, supporting safety-netting behaviour, which involves facilitating reconsultation, helping patients and carers to navigate the health system and explaining the care context and its purpose.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the collaborative nature of safety-netting, engaging both the clinician and patient, sometimes supported by carers, in an iterative process. Adding to previous research, our study also emphasises the importance of anticipating postconsultation inquiries and facilitating reconsultation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to increase understanding of the forms of systemic racism experienced by Latinx communities in North Carolina during the COVID-19 pandemic as identified by Latinx community health workers (CHWs) and community-based organization (CBO) leaders.
METHODS: We held three focus groups in July 2022 (N = 16) with CHWs and CBO leaders in Spanish to discuss policy and community interventions that improved access to resources during the COVID-19 pandemic; policy or community interventions needed to improve care of Latinx communities; and lessons learned to improve the health of Latinx communities in the future. We performed directed and summative qualitative content analysis of the data in the original language using the Levels of Racism Framework by Dr. Camara Jones to identify examples of implicitly and explicitly discussed forms of systemic racism.
RESULTS: Latinx CHWs and CBO leaders implicitly discussed numerous examples of all levels of racism when seeking and receiving health services, such as lack of resources for undocumented individuals and negative interactions with non-Latinx individuals, but did not explicitly name racism. Themes related to institutionalized racism included: differential access to resources due to language barriers; uninsured or undocumented status; exclusionary policies not accounting for cultural or socioeconomic differences; lack of action despite need; and difficulties obtaining sustainable funding. Themes related to personally-mediated racism included: lack of cultural awareness or humility; fear-inciting misinformation targeting Latinx populations; and negative interactions with non-Latinx individuals, organizations, or institutions. Themes related to internalized racism included: fear of seeking information or medical care; resignation or hopelessness; and competition among Latinx CBOs. Similarly, CHWs and CBO leaders discussed several interventions with systems-level impact without explicitly mentioning policy or policy change.
CONCLUSIONS: Our research demonstrates community-identified examples of racism and confirms that Latinx populations often do not name racism explicitly. Such language gaps limit the ability of CHWs and CBOs to highlight injustices and limit the ability of communities to advocate for themselves. Although generally COVID-19 focused, themes identified represent long-standing, systemic barriers affecting Latinx communities. It is therefore critical that public and private policymakers consider these language gaps and engage with Latinx communities to develop community-informed anti-racist policies to sustainably reduce forms of racism experienced by this unique population.

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: Research suggests that participating in after-school leisure activities has been related to promoting health, well-being and safety among children living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The United Nations Child Rights Convention emphasises the inclusion of children in decisions that concern them. However, children seldom are involved in designing implementing and evaluating health promotional environments. The aim of this programme is through a participatory process with children, parents/guardians, and peer-activity leaders explore, measure and evaluate the impact on children\'s overall well-being related to the social context in an already established health promotion environments in Southern Sweden.
METHODS: The project is based on a previously implemented unique community-based participatory research (CBPR) model for equal health in three socially disadvantaged areas in Malmö. All activity house (AAH) is a meeting place for children established in schools but after school time by the culture department of the Malmö municipality. In AAH migrant children participate in need-driven after school activities that they themselves create and develop. To increase participation of the children and ensure that these environments are based on their needs, 30 children (10-12 years), parents/guardians (30), peer-activity leaders (15), and researchers create CBPR teams in the areas and engage in a participatory process. The children reflect, analyse and write about their well-being; identify and discuss key factors in an iterative process, which also includes a strategic group of stakeholders. The children then develop and validate (with 100 other children from AAH) the Socioculturally Aligned Survey Instrument for Children survey inspired by the KIDSSCREEN V.27. The survey tool so developed will further be used to evaluate AAH and will be distributed to all children participating in their activities.
BACKGROUND: This programme has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. The results from this programme will be published as reports and scientific publication.

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.

UNASSIGNED: To present the methodological approach and research methods chosen in a research study designed to enable the collaborative creation of an education and training e-resource designed to facilitate and support care home staff to address the sexuality, intimacy and relationship needs of older care home residents.
UNASSIGNED: Co-production using community-based participatory approach.
UNASSIGNED: Four participatory workshops with care home staff, residents and their significant others.
UNASSIGNED: Workshops 1 and 2 identified and developed real-world case scenarios related to sexuality, intimacy and relationship needs and identified care staff training needs in this area. Then workshop 3 provided valuable feedback on the prototype training e-resource, and the final workshop identified care home staff engagement with and implementation of the e-resource in practice.
UNASSIGNED: The findings provide evidence that using participatory approaches, such as co-production, to develop education and training resources in a sensitive subject area with care home residents, significant others, carers and care home staff, was a useful approach in engaging a vulnerable population group, in a sensitive area. However, this approach is not without challenges in care home communities.