↓ Skip to main content

Increasing Research Capacity in Underserved Communities: Formative and Summative Evaluation of the Mississippi Community Research Fellows Training Program (Cohort 1)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Increasing Research Capacity in Underserved Communities: Formative and Summative Evaluation of the Mississippi Community Research Fellows Training Program (Cohort 1)
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danielle Fastring, Susan Mayfield-Johnson, Tanya Funchess, Candice Green, Victoria Walker, Georgette Powell

Abstract

The Mississippi Community Research Fellows Training Program (MSCRFTP) is a 15-week program conducted in Jackson, MS, USA consisting of training in the areas of evidence-based public health, research methods, research ethics, and cultural competency. The purpose of the program was to increase community knowledge and understanding of public health research, develop community-based projects that addressed health disparity in the participants' community, increase individual and community capacity, and to engage community members as equal partners in the research process. A comprehensive evaluation of the MSCRFTP was conducted that included both quantitative and qualitative methods. All participants were asked to complete a baseline, midterm, and final assessment as part of their program requirements. Knowledge gained was assessed by comparing baseline assessment responses to final assessment responses related to 27 key content areas addressed in the training sessions. Assessments also collected participants' attitudes toward participating in research within their communities, their perceived influence over community decisions, and their perceptions of community members' involvement in research, satisfaction with the program, and the program's impact on the participants' daily practice and community work. Twenty-one participants, the majority of which were female and African-American, completed the MSCRFTP. Knowledge of concepts addressed in 15 weekly training sessions improved significantly on 85.2% of 27 key areas evaluated (p < 0.05). Two mini-grant community based participatory research projects proposed by participants were funded through competitive application. Most participants agreed that by working together, the people in their community could influence decisions that affected the community. All participants rated their satisfaction with the overall program as "very high" (76.2%,n = 16) or "high" (23.8%,n = 5). The evaluation of the MSCRFTP demonstrates that participants have the necessary knowledge to engage as research partners, and the pilot projects provided an opportunity for application of this objective to be realized. Overall, the MSCRFTP was an intervention that assisted community members in identifying their communities' strengths and weaknesses, interpret knowledge in a meaningful way, and create a self-reflective community of inquiry for change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Master 6 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 16 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,489,831
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#4,655
of 10,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,512
of 442,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#78
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,596 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.