Employment as a Social Determinant of Health: An Urban Partnership’s Experience with HIV Intervention Development and Implementation Using Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR)

Abstract Innovative methodological frameworks are needed in intervention science to increase efficiency, potency, and community adoption of behavioral health interventions, as it currently takes 17 years and millions of dollars to test and disseminate interventions. The multiphase optimization strategy (MOST) for developing behavioral interventions was designed to optimize efficiency, efficacy, and sustainability, while community-based participatory research (CBPR) engages community members in all research steps. Classical approaches for developing behavioral interventions include testing against control interventions in randomized controlled trials. MOST adds an optimization phase to assess performance of individual intervention components and their interactions on outcomes. This information is used to engineer interventions that meet specific optimization criteria focused on effectiveness, cost, or time. Combining CBPR and MOST facilitates development of behavioral interventions that effectively address complex health challenges, are acceptable to communities, and sustainable by maximizing resources, building community capacity and acceptance. Herein, we present a case study to illustrate the value of combining MOST and CBPR to optimize a multilevel intervention for reducing substance misuse among formerly incarcerated men, for under $250 per person. This integration merged experiential and cutting-edge scientific knowledge and methods, built community capacity, and promoted the development of efficient interventions. Integrating CBPR and MOST principles yielded a framework of intervention development/testing that is more efficient, faster, cheaper, and rigorous than traditional stage models. Combining MOST and CBPR addressed significant intervention science gaps and speeds up testing and implementation of interventions.

Download Full-text

A structured collaborative approach to intervention design using a modified intervention mapping approach: a case study using the Management and Interventions for Asthma (MIA) project for South Asian children

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-020-01148-y ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Monica Lakhanpaul ◽

Lorraine Culley ◽

Noelle Robertson ◽

Emma C. Alexander ◽

Deborah Bird ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Participatory Research ◽

South Asian ◽

Healthcare Professionals ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Intervention Mapping ◽

Intervention Development ◽

Community Based Participatory Research ◽

Community Study ◽

Service Improvement ◽

Community Based

Abstract Background To describe how using a combined approach of community-based participatory research and intervention mapping principles could inform the development of a tailored complex intervention to improve management of asthma for South Asian (SA) children; Management and Interventions for Asthma (MIA) study. Methods A qualitative study using interviews, focus groups, workshops, and modified intervention mapping procedures to develop an intervention planning framework in an urban community setting in Leicester, UK. The modified form of intervention mapping (IM) included: systematic evidence synthesis; community study; families and healthcare professionals study; and development of potential collaborative intervention strategies. Participants in the community study were 63 SA community members and 12 key informants; in-depth semi-structured interviews involved 30 SA families, 14 White British (WB) families and 37 Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) treating SA children living with asthma; prioritisation workshops involved 145 SA, 6 WB and 37 HCP participants; 30 participants in finalisation workshops. Results Two key principles were utilised throughout the development of the intervention; community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles and intervention mapping (IM) procedures. The CBPR approach allowed close engagement with stakeholders and generated valuable knowledge to inform intervention development. It accounted for diverse perceptions and experiences with regard to asthma and recognised the priorities of patients and their families/caregivers for service improvement. The ‘ACT on Asthma’ programme was devised, comprising four arms of an intervention strategy: education and training, clinical support, advice centre and raising awareness, to be co-ordinated by a central team. Conclusions The modified IM principles utilised in this study were systematic and informed by theory. The combined IM and participatory approach could be considered when tailoring interventions for other clinical problems within diverse communities. The IM approach to intervention development was however resource intensive. Working in meaningful collaboration with minority communities requires specific resources and a culturally competent methodology.

Download Full-text