TY - JOUR
T1 - Data collection and management in community engaged research
T2 - Lessons learned from two community-based participatory research partnerships
AU - Cené, Crystal W.
AU - Haymore, Laura Beth
AU - Enga, Zoe
AU - Sallah, Stepheria Hodge
AU - Ritchwood, Tiarney
AU - Wynn, Mysha
AU - Ellis, Danny
AU - Corbie-Smith, Giselle
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Johns Hopkins University Press.
PY - 2015/9/1
Y1 - 2015/9/1
N2 - Background: Data collection and data management (DCDM) within community-engaged research (CEnR) requires special considerations that differ from those of traditional research. To date, little guidance exists to preemptively help community– academic partnerships anticipate and resolve DCDM issues that may arise. Objective: We sought to provide recommendations for DCDM based on two CEnR research projects. Methods: We used a case study design to describe the DCDM process and lessons learned that were generated through formal and informal discussions between community and academic partners. Lessons Learned: We identified 4 key lessons: 1) CEnR requires a flexible, iterative approach to DCDM, 2) there are trade-offs to having a flexible DCDM approach, 3) responsibilities for DCDM should consider the skill sets and priorities of all partners, and 4) nuances of DC within CEnR has important implications for human subjects and ethics training. Conclusions: Based on our lessons learned, we provide recommendations for how to approach DCDM within CEnR.
AB - Background: Data collection and data management (DCDM) within community-engaged research (CEnR) requires special considerations that differ from those of traditional research. To date, little guidance exists to preemptively help community– academic partnerships anticipate and resolve DCDM issues that may arise. Objective: We sought to provide recommendations for DCDM based on two CEnR research projects. Methods: We used a case study design to describe the DCDM process and lessons learned that were generated through formal and informal discussions between community and academic partners. Lessons Learned: We identified 4 key lessons: 1) CEnR requires a flexible, iterative approach to DCDM, 2) there are trade-offs to having a flexible DCDM approach, 3) responsibilities for DCDM should consider the skill sets and priorities of all partners, and 4) nuances of DC within CEnR has important implications for human subjects and ethics training. Conclusions: Based on our lessons learned, we provide recommendations for how to approach DCDM within CEnR.
KW - Community-based participatory research
KW - Health disparities
KW - Health outcomes
KW - Process issues
KW - Southeastern United States
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84946751102&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1353/cpr.2015.0057
DO - 10.1353/cpr.2015.0057
M3 - Article
C2 - 26548793
AN - SCOPUS:84946751102
SN - 1557-0541
VL - 9
SP - 413
EP - 422
JO - Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action
JF - Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action
IS - 3
ER -