Intervention/Research Design: Script: For the theme of Intervention/Research Design, use the following definitions or the longer list of characteristics as a reference. There are three different categories related to ensuring the intervention or research project matches the culture and context of the community. The category, Fits Local Cultural Knowledge/Norms and Practices means that the intervention is acceptable within community knowledge, norms, beliefs, or practices related to the health problem or program outcomes chosen, and may be more likely to be implemented and sustained over time. The category, Co-Learning/Partnership Synergy means that the research partnership will entail co-learning from the strengths and knowledge of both the academic and community participants. It means the group has the synergy to work together well to get the tasks done. The category, Appropriate Research Design, means that the community has had input to the research and the research is acceptable to the community. Which category or issue have we had to tackle or which would be important to discuss for our partnership at this time? Use the next probes if answers to these questions have not already been discussed. The first two questions are more factual and may be answered more quickly. What’s our current approach to [developing, implementing, sustaining, or disseminating] the intervention? (The specific question needs to be based on what the partnership is doing at this time). How are we incorporating community or cultural knowledge? What’s our approach to creating the research design? How well have we done so far? Where would we like to be [choose one: in one year, five years, or another time span]? What do we think are the best or promising practices to get there? Show slide 5: Intervention/Research Outcomes: Script: For the theme of Outcomes, there are two categories of outcomes to think about: 1) intermediate outcomes, such as systems changes and capacity changes that may influence the ability of the partnership to be successful in the future. Examples might be new policies, programs, or stronger community organizations and collaboratives; it may mean that interventions are more likely to be sustained with community ownership, or there is greater connection to culture as a result of the intervention; and finally 2) health outcomes, or actual changes in health or conditions that improve health disparities. We’d like to start by asking if we think this partnership has the capacity to create system or capacity changes and improve health? The next questions should be asked first for intermediate systems and capacity outcomes; and secondly, for health outcomes.
Which outcome(s) would you like to focus on now? Use the next question as probes: The two questions are more factual and may be answered more quickly. What was our starting point for this outcome? How well have we done so far? Where would we like to be [choose one: in one year, five years, or another time span]? What do we think are the best or promising practices to get there? Show 6: Outcomes We have a few final questions: How helpful has it been to use the model in evaluating your partnership and in reflecting about the issues in our partnership? Is this a process that would be helpful to do on an annual basis? How could the model be changed to be more helpful in evaluating your partnerships? We believe that this model is dynamic and each partnership should feel free to adapt it and add constructs (or categories) within each oval dimension that may be appropriate for your own partnership to evaluate and track over time. Finally, what is the most important lesson learned from your work with this partnership that might influence your decision to work with another partnership in the future? Thank you so much for the dialogue and evaluation of issues within the partnership. We hope this self-reflection and evaluation has been useful for your next steps. If you do create or re-create your own model and adapt the constructs/categories within each dimension to your own partnership, we’d love to hear from you. Send your adapted model and your insights to cpr.unm.edu. We’d love to post your model on our UNM Center for Participatory Research website to share with others if you are willing. Many thanks, Nina Wallerstein Producers of this Focus Group Guide: Julie Lucero, Lorenda Belone, Bonnie Duran, Greg Tafoya, Nina Wallerstein. Appreciation to oversight from the National Advisory Board of Think Tank of the CBPR Research and Evaluation Community of Practice: Margarita Alegria, Magdalena Avila, Elizabeth Baker, Beverly Becenti-Pigman, Charlotte Chung,