1. Thank you for being here today.
Innovative methodological strategies for data collection in CBPR: Lessons from the field
Barbara Lutz, PhD, RN, Co-I, Assistant Professor
Shawn Kneipp, PhD, ARNP, PI, Associate Professor
Deirdra Means, Research Assistant
University of Florida
College of Nursing

2. Acknowledgements Funded by NIH/NINR Study Team #R01 NR009406-01
Shawn M. Kneipp, PhD, ARNP
Barbara Lutz, PhD, RN
Deidre Pereira, PhD
Allyson Hall, PhD
Joan Flocks, MPH, JD
Linda Beeber, PhD, RN
Deirdra Means
Michelle E. Galin, RN, BSN

3. Purpose
To describe data collection, analysis, and synthesis methods while maintaining integrity and rigor, and adhering to the tenets of CBPR.

4. Introduction CBPR Collaboration with community members
Addresses key community issues
Includes members of community as equitable partners
Facilitates long-tem sustainability i

5. Background Our community – Women in WTP Have poorer health
As compared to general population
2-3 times higher very poor health on SF12
27-52% depression vs general population (12%)
Other problems
Generalized anxiety disorder
PTSD
Domestic violence

6. Background Health problems inadequately addressed
Ineffective or no health-related services for women on WTP
Wide variation
by state and county
types services provided
Mental health, physical health

7. Background Health needs poorly identified in WTP
Typically focus on mental health and drug abuse issues
45-64% have some screening processes for various mental health issues
Only 7% of states have health screening & referral process for physical health conditions
Explicit federal recommendations for addressing health needs of women in WTP
Mental health, physical health

8. Overall Study Design
Phase 1 – develop a culturally sensitive and acceptable health screening tool for women in WTP
Phase 2 – validate the tool with women in WTP
Phase 3 – conduct a PHN intervention with women in WTP
health screening
referral
health-related education
Today I am focusing on the data collection for Phase 1

9. Method Phase 1 Sample Develop a health screening tool 10 Focus Groups
8-10 women in each group
61 total
11 participated more than once

10. Method Sample Characteristics Age – 30.3 (mean) Not Married – 92%
Race/Ethnicity
Black/AA – 70%
White – 25%
Hispanic/Latino – 7%
Household Income – $759 (mean)

11. Method Sample Characteristics Education Children – 2.2 (mean)
HS – 26%
College – 50%
Children – 2.2 (mean)
Number of Chronic Health Conditions
1-2 – 38%
3-4 – 36%

12. Method Focus Groups Reviewed strategies with Community Advisory Board
Portions facilitated by all research team members
PI, CO-I, RA, Project Coordinator
Audio-taped
Transcribed verbatim & verified
Field notes

13. Method Data collection & analysis occur simultaneously Emergent design
Applied typology a priori (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2003)
3 Rounds of FGs
Round 1
thematic survey
Rounds 2 & 3
topical survey

14. Typology of Findings for Qualitative Studies
FG 7-9
FG 4-6
FG 1-3
From: Sandelowski, M. & Barroso, J. Classifying the findings in qualitative studies.
Qualitative Health Research (13)7,

15. Method Round 1 – FG 1-3 Broad, open-ended questions
Focusing on views of being health, unhealthy
What do HCPs need to know

16. Method Round 2 – FG 4-6 Based on findings from Round 1 More focused
Topical survey – screening topics
Wording of questions
Sensitive
Respectful
Appropriate
Issues related to process began to surface

17. Method Round 3 – FG 7-9 FG 10 – Rural Women Focused / Open
Review of new tool
Understandability
Appropriateness
Discussions re: process of health screening
Iterative moving b/t topical survey & thematic/conceptual description
FG 10 – Rural Women
confirmatory

18. Typology of Findings for Qualitative Studies
FG 1-3
FG 4-9
From: Sandelowski, M. & Barroso, J. Classifying the findings in qualitative studies.
Qualitative Health Research (13)7,

19. Outcomes
Identified health-related topics/issues important to women in WTP
Developed culturally sensitive, respectful health screening tool
Identified issues with health screening process
Adapted intervention for Phase 3 of RCT

20. Implications
CBPR provides opportunities to experiment with new methodological strategies
Using FGs in an emergent design allows for necessary flexibility
Identifying a priori focus of analysis provides direction but is not a directive
Exploratory methods allow for discovery
Importance of process in interventions with women in WTP
Not just WHAT is addressed
But HOW the problem is addressed

21. QUESTIONS? THANK YOU!

22. Barbara Lutz, PhD, RN Assistant Professor University of Florida
College of Nursing
(352)