A community-academic partnership was formed in Minnesota's Red River Basin for a 1-year planning grant preceding a larger intervention to reduce pesticide exposure among children. Photovoice, developed by Dr. Caroline Wang, was used by mothers to document pathways to pesticide exposure for their children along with other health and safety concerns. An evaluation of the partnership was conducted for mothers, and for the research team of local stakeholders and academics. Surveys consisting of structured and open-ended questions elicited information on the perception of the process and short-term outcomes. Questions were created based on objectives of the Photovoice project, satisfaction, and principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR). A high percentage of study participants and researchers indicated that the objectives of the effort had been met, the principles of CBPR had been realized and they were satisfied with the benefits of participation. A need for more thorough planning was identified related to long-term dissemination of knowledge generated. The evaluation provides insight on the strengths and weaknesses of the project, demonstrates to team members and funders that formative and summative outcomes were met, and serves as a model for community-academic partnerships utilizing Photovoice as one CBPR method.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
Funding for this research was supported in part by grants from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Foundation of Minnesota, the University of Minnesota Office of Clinical Research and the Medical School’s Program in Health Disparities Research; a graduate fellowship in environmental health promotion from SOPHE/ATSDR; the Midwest Center for Occupational Safety and Health (Grant No. T420H008434 from the National institute for Occupational Safety and Health); the Ruth Hulton Endowment Fund; and the University of Minnesota Northwest Regional Sustainable Development Partnership. The contents are solely the authors’ responsibility and do not represent the official views of any funding source.
- community-academic partnerships
- community-based participatory research
- pesticide exposure