Title |
“A place at the table:” a qualitative analysis of community board members’ experiences with academic HIV/AIDS research
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medical Research Methodology, July 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12874-016-0181-8 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Stella Safo, Chinazo Cunningham, Alice Beckman, Lorlette Haughton, Joanna L. Starrels |
Abstract |
Community advisory boards (CAB) are proposed as one mechanism to carry out successful community based participatory research (CBPR), but the presence of CABs may be insufficient to optimize academic-community partnerships. We conducted semi-structured interviews with minority members of a CAB partnered with a HIV/AIDS research center and identified three themes. First, lack of trust in researchers included two subthemes: researchers' lacked respect for community-based organizations' (CBO's) interests and paid inadequate attention to building trust. Second, power imbalance included three subthemes: CAB members felt like inferior "token" members, felt that a lack of communication led to disempowerment, and held preconceived beliefs of researchers that led to perceived power imbalance. Third, CAB members suggested best practices, including using collaborations to build trust, actively allocating power, and sharing tangible research benefits with CBOs. Our findings indicate that CABs must be founded on trust and instilled with power to meet the tenets of CBPR. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 25% |
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sierra Leone | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 53 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 14 | 26% |
Student > Master | 12 | 22% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
Other | 4 | 7% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
Other | 5 | 9% |
Unknown | 10 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Social Sciences | 16 | 30% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
Psychology | 3 | 6% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 4% |
Other | 6 | 11% |
Unknown | 13 | 24% |