abstract
The inclusion of community partners in participatory leadership roles
around statistical design issues like sampling and randomization
has raised concerns about scientific integrity.
This article presents a case study of a community-partnered,
participatory
research (CPPR) cluster-randomized, comparative
effectiveness trial to examine implications for study validity and
community
relevance. Using study administrative data, we
describe a CPPR-based design and implementation process for
agency/program
sampling, recruitment, and randomization for
depression interventions. We calculated participation rates and used
cross-tabulation
to examine balance by intervention status on
service sector, location, and program size and assessed differences in
potential
populations served. We achieved 51.5% agency and
89.6% program participation rates. Programs in different intervention
arms
were not significantly different on service sector,
location, or program size. Participating programs were not
significantly
different from eligible, nonparticipating programs
on community characteristics. We reject claims that including community
members in research design decisions compromises
scientific integrity. This case study suggests that a CPPR process can
improve
implementation of a community-grounded, rigorous
randomized comparative effectiveness trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.