ADMINISTRATIVE CORE

行政核心

• 批准号: 9369092
• 负责人: Marjorie K. Leimomi Mala Mau
• 金额: $ 42.97万
• 依托单位: UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 2015
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2015-11-01 至 2017-10-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/9369092
• 关键词: Address; Administrative Efficiency; Awareness; Behavior; Collaborations; Communities; Complex; Diabetes Mellitus; Disease; Evidence based treatment; Funding; Goals; Guidelines; Hawaiian population; Health; Health Status; Heart Diseases; Lead; Life Style; Liquid substance; Minority; Modeling; Morbidity - disease rate; Movement; Obesity; Pacific Island Americans; Participant; Policies; Population; Process; Public Health; Relationship-Building; Research; Research Activity; Research Personnel; Research Project Grants; Resources; Role; Science; Scientific Advances and Accomplishments; Socioeconomic Factors; Time; Translations; Trust; United States National Institutes of Health; Work; clinical practice; community based participatory research; community organizations; design; ethnic minority population; experience; handbook; health difference; health disparity; health equity; health science research; high risk; improved; innovation; member; mortality; novel strategies; programs; racial minority; research study; success; trend; willingness

Despite decades of programs and policies to eliminate unjust health differences in the US, there remain significant disparities in health status among racial and ethnic minority populations. Among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, cardiometabolic disorders such as heart disease, diabetes and obesity, remains a complex and pervasive problem that is strongly associated with lifestyle behaviors, environmental influences and socioeconomic factors.(1-3) Among minority populations such as Native Hawaiians, Pacific Islanders, and other high-risk populations, this context poses both challenges and opportunities for confronting cardiometabolic health disparities and reversing these trends. Recently there has been a growing movement towards participatory research as a means to build trust and to disseminate evidence based treatments into clinical practice. The rapidly evolving concept of participatory research, often referred to as community based participatory research (CBPR) is gaining momentum as an important feature of public funded health sciences research.(4-6) However, the degree of involvement of community partners varies considerably and the concepts of what CBPR is and how it relates to the research enterprise remains fluid and continually evolving.(7) In our Center for Native and Pacific Health Disparities Research (CNPHDR), we have worked collaboratively with many grassroots community organizations and have developed guidelines and processes that have worked well to advance the scientific agenda while sustaining and building trust in our multiple partnerships.(8, 9) Our 9 years of experience in the Center has resulted in a broad array of contexts in which our community partners are involved to varying degrees.(10) For example, our general approach to working with communities for the first time is to allow the community to first identify the level of involvement they are willing and able to participate in. A discussion ensues about the specifics of a research project as it relates to both parties weighing the benefit and burden of working together to conduct scientific research. In other words, it is the community organization that decides how they want to be involved and it is the responsibility of the PI to discuss with the community whether that role/involvement is consistent with the aims and purpose of the research study. In general, our Center has effectively used this process of relationship building and discussion over the last 9+ years and it has been very valuable in working openly with our community partners in Center-related research projects. In fact, a rich resource for how to adapt this approach has been described in a handbook authored by two of our community partners.(11) Yet, there remain research studies undertaken today by investigators in which there is a lack of awareness or willingness to include community members as active participants of the research enterprise rather than just subjects within research studies.(12, 13) Criticisms of CBPR as a valid approach to solving some of the most persistent health disparity problems remain unresolved. However, the field of CBPR and its application to health disparities research remains a viable approach with potential for not only advancing scientific discovery but also for the translation of science to benefit the public's health, which is one of the long term goals of NIH funded research.

尽管美国制定了数十年的计划和政策来消除不公正的健康差异，但仍然存在 少数种族和族裔人口的健康状况存在显着差异。主要原因之一 心脏病、糖尿病和肥胖等心脏代谢疾病的发病率和死亡率仍然是一个 与生活方式、环境影响密切相关的复杂而普遍的问题 和社会经济因素。(1-3) 在夏威夷原住民、太平洋岛民和 对于其他高危人群来说，这种情况既带来了挑战，也带来了机遇 心脏代谢健康差异并扭转这些趋势。最近运动愈演愈烈 将参与性研究作为建立信任和传播基于证据的治疗方法的一种手段 临床实践。快速发展的参与式研究概念，通常称为基于社区的研究 作为公共资助的健康科学的一个重要特征，参与式研究（CBPR）正在蓬勃发展 (4-6) 然而，社区合作伙伴的参与程度差异很大，并且 CBPR 是什么以及它与研究企业的关系的概念仍然不稳定且不断变化 不断发展。(7) 在我们的土著和太平洋健康差异研究中心 (CNPHDR)，我们开展了 与许多基层社区组织合作并制定了指导方针和流程 这在推进科学议程方面发挥了很好的作用，同时维持和建立了对我们多个国家的信任 (8, 9) 我们在该中心 9 年的经验带来了广泛的背景，其中 我们的社区合作伙伴不同程度地参与其中。(10) 例如，我们第一次与社区合作的一般方法是让社区 首先确定他们愿意并且能够参与的参与程度。随后进行了讨论 研究项目的具体细节，因为它涉及双方权衡工作的利益和负担 共同开展科学研究。换句话说，社区组织决定他们想要如何参与，而 PI 有责任与社区讨论是否可以参与其中。 角色/参与与研究的目的和目的一致。总的来说，我们中心有 在过去 9 年多的时间里，我有效地利用了这种建立关系和讨论的过程，并且效果非常好 与我们的社区合作伙伴在中心相关的研究项目中公开合作很有价值。事实上，一个有钱人 我们社区的两位成员撰写的手册中描述了如何采用这种方法的资源 合作伙伴。(11) 然而，研究人员今天进行的研究仍然缺乏认识 或愿意将社区成员纳入研究事业的积极参与者而不仅仅是 研究中的主题。(12, 13) 对 CBPR 作为解决一些最棘手问题的有效方法的批评 持续存在的健康差距问题仍未得到解决。然而，CBPR 领域及其应用 健康差异研究仍然是一种可行的方法，不仅有可能推进科学发现 也是为了科学转化造福公众健康，这是 NIH 的长期目标之一 资助的研究。