Prevention Research Centers Program: Researcher-Community Partnership for High-Impact Results

Author(s):  
Diane Hawkins-Cox ◽  
Jeffrey R. Harris ◽  
Ross C. Brownson ◽  
Alice S. Ammerman ◽  
Barbara Sajor Gray
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S592-S592
Author(s):  
Glenna Brewster ◽  
Fayron Epps ◽  
Rachel Nash ◽  
Patricia Griffiths ◽  
Janice Phillips ◽  
...  

Abstract Responsibilities of caregiving for persons living with dementia make it challenging to participate in in-person research studies. Caregivers may be more willing to participate in studies that are online. This presentation will highlight recruitment strategies of a 4-site telehealth caregiver intervention for caregivers of persons living with dementia. Thus far, we have recruited 596 participants over the period of 2 years: 76, 189, 164 and 167 from each of the sites, respectively. Community partnership strategies such as presentations at churches and events organized by the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Alzheimer’s Disease Research centers, using a handshake protocol, and using social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter have all been effective at recruiting participants. Ongoing communication among the staff at different sites is also an important aspect of successful recruitment. These strategies have enabled recruitment to continue at a consistent rate and enabled the maintenance of relationships within the community.


2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. S209-S210
Author(s):  
James S. Marks ◽  
Jeffrey P. Koplan

2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-254
Author(s):  
Rose A. Marcelin ◽  
Kristina M. Rabarison ◽  
Monika K. Rabarison

Objective: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) collaborate on public health activities with community agencies and organizations. We evaluated these collaborations by studying the relationships between co-authors from the PRCs and community agencies that published at least 1 article together in the first year of the program. Methods: We identified all the authors of articles published by PRCs and collaborating members in peer-reviewed journals between September 2014 and September 2015 and constructed a network showing the links between and among all the authors. We characterized the network with 4 measures of social structure (network components, network density, average clustering coefficient, average distance) and 3 measures of individual author performances (degree-, betweenness-, and closeness-centrality). Results: The 413 articles had 1804 individual authors and 7995 co-authorship relationships (links) in 212 peer-reviewed journals. These authors and co-authors formed 44 separate, nonoverlapping groups (components). The largest “giant” component containing most of the links involved 66.3% (n = 1196) of the authors and 73.7% (n = 5889) of the links. We identified 136 “information brokers” (authors with high closeness centrality: those who have the shortest links to the most authors). Two authors with high betweenness centrality (who had the highest number of co-authors; 104 and 107) had the greatest ability to mediate co-authorships. Network density was low; only 0.5% of all potential co-authorships were realized (7995 actual co-authorship/1 628 110 potential co-authorships). Conclusion: Information brokers and co-authorship mediators should be encouraged to communicate more with each other to increase the number of collaborations between network members and, hence, the number of co-authorships.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belinda-Rose Young ◽  
Kimberly D. Leeks ◽  
Connie L. Bish ◽  
Paul Mihas ◽  
Rose A. Marcelin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document