Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Health Education & Behavior
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1090198105285927v1
35/1/70    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Flicker, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Flicker, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Article

Who Benefits From Community-Based Participatory Research? A Case Study of the Positive Youth Project

Sarah Flicker, PhD*

Wellesley Central Health Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Sarah{at}wellesleycentral.com.


  Abstract

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved as a popular new paradigm in health research. This shift is exciting, yet there is still much to discover about how various stakeholders are affected. This article uses a critical social science perspective to explore who benefits from these changes through an analysis of a CBPR case study (The Positive Youth Project). Two major categories of beneficiaries emerged: the research itself and the partner-stakeholders. The benefits, however, were not gained without substantial human resource investment, nor were they necessarily equitably spread. Participation costs included heavy demands of time, an added burden of work, frustration with the process, missing other opportunities, risking loss of anonymity, and loss of control. Care needs to be taken to ensure that concrete benefits accrue for all project partners and costs are minimized. Another way of framing benefits is to look at the community capacities built to address future health and social issues.

Key Words: community-based participatory research, partnerships, youth, HIV, community-based organizations, academics

First published on May 31, 2006, doi:10.1177/1090198105285927

Health Education & Behavior 2008;35:70.

A more recent version of this article appeared on February 1, 2008

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Action ResearchHome page
S. Flicker, O. Maley, A. Ridgley, S. Biscope, C. Lombardo, and H. A. Skinner
e-PAR: Using technology and participatory action research to engage youth in health promotion
Action Research, September 1, 2008; 6(3): 285 - 303.
[Abstract] [PDF]