Cited by 75Community Health and DevelopmentPublic Health Policies and EducationService-Learning and Community Engagement

Doing Community-Driven Research: A Description of Seattle Partners for Healthy Communities

Open access
Eisinger, A.·2001·Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine

Abstract

Seattle Partners, an Urban Research Center (URC) funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is a partnership of community agency representatives, community activists, public health professionals, academics, and health care providers whose mission is to improve the health of urban Seattle, Washington, communities by conducting community-based participatory research. This article describes the development and characteristics of Seattle Partners. Using primarily qualitative methods, including periodic in-depth interviews, evaluators identified the components necessary for Seattle Partners to maintain a collaborative and establish a research center driven by community interests. Seattle Partners is run by an unrestricted and inclusive board that has spent 5 years developing both an operating structure and various research interventions. Operating under Community Collaboration Principles, the board identified social determinants of health as the priority area in which to work. Collaboration, "small and concrete" accomplishments, skilled individuals, and funder support directly influence the success of the center. Decision making, project selection, and board composition have all been challenges to work through. Learning how to do and sustain the work are lessons being learned as Seattle Partners matures.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jurban/78.3.519

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • NIEHS endorses six principles for effective CBPR based on prior investigations and interactions with practitioners.

    “On the basis of prior investigations ( 13-20 ) and interactions with practitioners ( 11 ), NIEHS endorses the following principles for effective CBPR:”

    From Community-based participatory research as a tool to advance environmental health sciences (2002) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Introduction describes Seattle Partners bringing together community members, practitioners, and researchers, and the Abstract reports interviews used to identify components of a community-driven research partnership. These passages support the reference to practitioner interactions, which is where citation (11) appears, but they do not establish that NIEHS drew on those interactions to endorse six CBPR principles. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Historically, communities have often been seen as cohorts rather than full partners in the research process.

    “Historically, communities have often been seen as cohorts rather than full partners in the research process ( 11,16-18 ).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Sullivan M, Kone A, Senturia KD, Chrisman N, Ciske S, Krieger J. Researcher and researched-community perspectives: toward bridging the gap. Health Educ Behav. 2001; 28(2):130-149.
  2. Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc Sci Med. 1995;41(12):1667- 1676.
  3. Gamble V. A legacy of distrust: African Americans and medical research. Am J Prev Med. 1993;9:35-38.
  4. Sullivan M, Kone A, Senturia K, Chrisman N, Ciske S, Krieger J. History of community- based research in Seattle. Health Educ Behav. 2000;28(2):130-149.
  5. Silverman D. Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage Publications; 1993.
  6. Krieger J, Castorina J, Walls M, Weaver M, Ciske S. Increasing influenza and pneumo- coccal immunization rates: a randomized controlled study of a senior center-based inter- vention. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18(2):123-131.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eisinger, A.
Affiliations
Public Health – Seattle & King County (US)
Corresponding author
Eisinger, A.
Venue
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine
Published
2001-09-01
Volume
78
Issue
3
Pages
519-534
ISSN
  • 0022-1503 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-3460
  • 1471-8505
OpenAlex
W2100446345
Cited by
75
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
13.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Heredity (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Service-Learning and Community Engagement
Keywords
community-based participatory research, urban health, social determinants of health, community collaboration, research centre governance, board composition, decision-making, community partnerships, public health partnerships, lessons learned
MeSH terms
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S., Community-Institutional Relations, Cooperative Behavior, Data Collection, Health Promotion, Health Services Research, Humans, Organizational Affiliation, Organizational Objectives, Social Change, Social Class, United States, Washington, Organizational Culture, Community Health Planning, Urban Health Services, Organizational Case Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review