Community-Academic Partnerships

A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research

Amy Drahota, Rosemary D. Meza, Brigitte Brikho, Meghan Naaf, Jasper A. Estabillo, Emily D. Gomez, Sarah F. Vejnoska, Sarah Dufek, Aubyn Stahmer, Gregory A. Aarons

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Policy Points: Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research, to provide firsthand knowledge and insight. Based on our systematic review of major literature databases, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership (CAP), and a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines and strengthen the field. Interpersonal and operational factors that facilitate or hinder the collaborative process have been consistently identified, including "trust among partners" and "respect among partners" (facilitating interpersonal factors) and "excessive time commitment" (hindering operational factor). Once CAP processes and characteristics are better understood, the effectiveness of collaborative partner involvement can be tested. Context Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research. Community stakeholders can provide firsthand knowledge and insight, thereby increasing research relevance and feasibility. Despite the greater emphasis and use of community-academic partnerships (CAP) across multiple disciplines, definitions of partnerships and methodologies vary greatly, and no systematic reviews consolidating this literature have been published. The purpose of this article, then, is to facilitate the continued growth of this field by examining the characteristics of CAPs and the current state of the science, identifying the facilitating and hindering influences on the collaborative process, and developing a common term and conceptual definition for use across disciplines. Methods Our systematic search of 6 major literature databases generated 1,332 unique articles, 50 of which met our criteria for inclusion and provided data on 54 unique CAPs. We then analyzed studies to describe CAP characteristics and to identify the terms and methods used, as well as the common influences on the CAP process and distal outcomes. Findings CAP research spans disciplines, involves a variety of community stakeholders, and focuses on a large range of study topics. CAP research articles, however, rarely report characteristics such as membership numbers or duration. Most studies involved case studies using qualitative methods to collect data on the collaborative process. Although various terms were used to describe collaborative partnerships, few studies provided conceptual definitions. Twenty-three facilitating and hindering factors influencing the CAP collaboration process emerged from the literature. Outcomes from the CAPs most often included developing or refining tangible products. Conclusions Based on our systematic review, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership, as well as a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines. In addition, CAP characteristics and methods should be reported more systematically to advance the field (eg, to develop CAP evaluation tools). We have identified the most common influences that facilitate and hinder CAPs, which in turn should guide their development and sustainment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)163-214
Number of pages52
JournalMilbank Quarterly
Volume94
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2016

Fingerprint

Research
Databases
Growth

Keywords

  • collaboration
  • community-academic partnership
  • community-based participatory research
  • research design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Drahota, A., Meza, R. D., Brikho, B., Naaf, M., Estabillo, J. A., Gomez, E. D., ... Aarons, G. A. (2016). Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. Milbank Quarterly, 94(1), 163-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12184

Community-Academic Partnerships : A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. / Drahota, Amy; Meza, Rosemary D.; Brikho, Brigitte; Naaf, Meghan; Estabillo, Jasper A.; Gomez, Emily D.; Vejnoska, Sarah F.; Dufek, Sarah; Stahmer, Aubyn; Aarons, Gregory A.

In: Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 94, No. 1, 01.03.2016, p. 163-214.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Drahota, A, Meza, RD, Brikho, B, Naaf, M, Estabillo, JA, Gomez, ED, Vejnoska, SF, Dufek, S, Stahmer, A & Aarons, GA 2016, 'Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research', Milbank Quarterly, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 163-214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12184
Drahota, Amy ; Meza, Rosemary D. ; Brikho, Brigitte ; Naaf, Meghan ; Estabillo, Jasper A. ; Gomez, Emily D. ; Vejnoska, Sarah F. ; Dufek, Sarah ; Stahmer, Aubyn ; Aarons, Gregory A. / Community-Academic Partnerships : A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research. In: Milbank Quarterly. 2016 ; Vol. 94, No. 1. pp. 163-214.
@article{8be922072f1341eea4ebfae57415f427,
title = "Community-Academic Partnerships: A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research",
abstract = "Policy Points: Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research, to provide firsthand knowledge and insight. Based on our systematic review of major literature databases, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership (CAP), and a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines and strengthen the field. Interpersonal and operational factors that facilitate or hinder the collaborative process have been consistently identified, including {"}trust among partners{"} and {"}respect among partners{"} (facilitating interpersonal factors) and {"}excessive time commitment{"} (hindering operational factor). Once CAP processes and characteristics are better understood, the effectiveness of collaborative partner involvement can be tested. Context Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research. Community stakeholders can provide firsthand knowledge and insight, thereby increasing research relevance and feasibility. Despite the greater emphasis and use of community-academic partnerships (CAP) across multiple disciplines, definitions of partnerships and methodologies vary greatly, and no systematic reviews consolidating this literature have been published. The purpose of this article, then, is to facilitate the continued growth of this field by examining the characteristics of CAPs and the current state of the science, identifying the facilitating and hindering influences on the collaborative process, and developing a common term and conceptual definition for use across disciplines. Methods Our systematic search of 6 major literature databases generated 1,332 unique articles, 50 of which met our criteria for inclusion and provided data on 54 unique CAPs. We then analyzed studies to describe CAP characteristics and to identify the terms and methods used, as well as the common influences on the CAP process and distal outcomes. Findings CAP research spans disciplines, involves a variety of community stakeholders, and focuses on a large range of study topics. CAP research articles, however, rarely report characteristics such as membership numbers or duration. Most studies involved case studies using qualitative methods to collect data on the collaborative process. Although various terms were used to describe collaborative partnerships, few studies provided conceptual definitions. Twenty-three facilitating and hindering factors influencing the CAP collaboration process emerged from the literature. Outcomes from the CAPs most often included developing or refining tangible products. Conclusions Based on our systematic review, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership, as well as a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines. In addition, CAP characteristics and methods should be reported more systematically to advance the field (eg, to develop CAP evaluation tools). We have identified the most common influences that facilitate and hinder CAPs, which in turn should guide their development and sustainment.",
keywords = "collaboration, community-academic partnership, community-based participatory research, research design",
author = "Amy Drahota and Meza, {Rosemary D.} and Brigitte Brikho and Meghan Naaf and Estabillo, {Jasper A.} and Gomez, {Emily D.} and Vejnoska, {Sarah F.} and Sarah Dufek and Aubyn Stahmer and Aarons, {Gregory A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1468-0009.12184",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "163--214",
journal = "Milbank Quarterly",
issn = "0887-378X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community-Academic Partnerships

T2 - A Systematic Review of the State of the Literature and Recommendations for Future Research

AU - Drahota, Amy

AU - Meza, Rosemary D.

AU - Brikho, Brigitte

AU - Naaf, Meghan

AU - Estabillo, Jasper A.

AU - Gomez, Emily D.

AU - Vejnoska, Sarah F.

AU - Dufek, Sarah

AU - Stahmer, Aubyn

AU - Aarons, Gregory A.

PY - 2016/3/1

Y1 - 2016/3/1

N2 - Policy Points: Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research, to provide firsthand knowledge and insight. Based on our systematic review of major literature databases, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership (CAP), and a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines and strengthen the field. Interpersonal and operational factors that facilitate or hinder the collaborative process have been consistently identified, including "trust among partners" and "respect among partners" (facilitating interpersonal factors) and "excessive time commitment" (hindering operational factor). Once CAP processes and characteristics are better understood, the effectiveness of collaborative partner involvement can be tested. Context Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research. Community stakeholders can provide firsthand knowledge and insight, thereby increasing research relevance and feasibility. Despite the greater emphasis and use of community-academic partnerships (CAP) across multiple disciplines, definitions of partnerships and methodologies vary greatly, and no systematic reviews consolidating this literature have been published. The purpose of this article, then, is to facilitate the continued growth of this field by examining the characteristics of CAPs and the current state of the science, identifying the facilitating and hindering influences on the collaborative process, and developing a common term and conceptual definition for use across disciplines. Methods Our systematic search of 6 major literature databases generated 1,332 unique articles, 50 of which met our criteria for inclusion and provided data on 54 unique CAPs. We then analyzed studies to describe CAP characteristics and to identify the terms and methods used, as well as the common influences on the CAP process and distal outcomes. Findings CAP research spans disciplines, involves a variety of community stakeholders, and focuses on a large range of study topics. CAP research articles, however, rarely report characteristics such as membership numbers or duration. Most studies involved case studies using qualitative methods to collect data on the collaborative process. Although various terms were used to describe collaborative partnerships, few studies provided conceptual definitions. Twenty-three facilitating and hindering factors influencing the CAP collaboration process emerged from the literature. Outcomes from the CAPs most often included developing or refining tangible products. Conclusions Based on our systematic review, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership, as well as a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines. In addition, CAP characteristics and methods should be reported more systematically to advance the field (eg, to develop CAP evaluation tools). We have identified the most common influences that facilitate and hinder CAPs, which in turn should guide their development and sustainment.

AB - Policy Points: Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research, to provide firsthand knowledge and insight. Based on our systematic review of major literature databases, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership (CAP), and a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines and strengthen the field. Interpersonal and operational factors that facilitate or hinder the collaborative process have been consistently identified, including "trust among partners" and "respect among partners" (facilitating interpersonal factors) and "excessive time commitment" (hindering operational factor). Once CAP processes and characteristics are better understood, the effectiveness of collaborative partner involvement can be tested. Context Communities, funding agencies, and institutions are increasingly involving community stakeholders as partners in research. Community stakeholders can provide firsthand knowledge and insight, thereby increasing research relevance and feasibility. Despite the greater emphasis and use of community-academic partnerships (CAP) across multiple disciplines, definitions of partnerships and methodologies vary greatly, and no systematic reviews consolidating this literature have been published. The purpose of this article, then, is to facilitate the continued growth of this field by examining the characteristics of CAPs and the current state of the science, identifying the facilitating and hindering influences on the collaborative process, and developing a common term and conceptual definition for use across disciplines. Methods Our systematic search of 6 major literature databases generated 1,332 unique articles, 50 of which met our criteria for inclusion and provided data on 54 unique CAPs. We then analyzed studies to describe CAP characteristics and to identify the terms and methods used, as well as the common influences on the CAP process and distal outcomes. Findings CAP research spans disciplines, involves a variety of community stakeholders, and focuses on a large range of study topics. CAP research articles, however, rarely report characteristics such as membership numbers or duration. Most studies involved case studies using qualitative methods to collect data on the collaborative process. Although various terms were used to describe collaborative partnerships, few studies provided conceptual definitions. Twenty-three facilitating and hindering factors influencing the CAP collaboration process emerged from the literature. Outcomes from the CAPs most often included developing or refining tangible products. Conclusions Based on our systematic review, we recommend using a single term, community-academic partnership, as well as a conceptual definition to unite multiple research disciplines. In addition, CAP characteristics and methods should be reported more systematically to advance the field (eg, to develop CAP evaluation tools). We have identified the most common influences that facilitate and hinder CAPs, which in turn should guide their development and sustainment.

KW - collaboration

KW - community-academic partnership

KW - community-based participatory research

KW - research design

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84963976877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84963976877&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1468-0009.12184

DO - 10.1111/1468-0009.12184

M3 - Review article

VL - 94

SP - 163

EP - 214

JO - Milbank Quarterly

JF - Milbank Quarterly

SN - 0887-378X

IS - 1

ER -