↓ Skip to main content

Cultivating community-based participatory research (CBPR) to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic: an illustrative example of partnership and topic prioritization in the food services industry

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Cultivating community-based participatory research (CBPR) to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic: an illustrative example of partnership and topic prioritization in the food services industry
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12889-023-16787-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Hoerger, Seowoo Kim, Brenna Mossman, Sarah Alonzi, Kenneth Xu, John C. Coward, Kathleen Whalen, Elizabeth Nauman, Jonice Miller, Tracey De La Cerda, Tristen Peyser, Addison Dunn, Dana Zapolin, Dulcé Rivera, Navya Murugesan, Courtney N. Baker

Abstract

As an illustrative example of COVID-19 pandemic community-based participatory research (CBPR), we describe a community-academic partnership to prioritize future research most important to people experiencing high occupational exposure to COVID-19 - food service workers. Food service workers face key challenges surrounding (1) health and safety precautions, (2) stress and mental health, and (3) the long-term pandemic impact. Using CBPR methodologies, academic scientists partnered with community stakeholders to develop the research aims, methods, and measures, and interpret and disseminate results. We conducted a survey, three focus groups, and a rapid qualitative assessment to understand the three areas of concern and prioritize future research. The survey showed that food service employers mainly supported basic droplet protections (soap, hand sanitizer, gloves), rather than comprehensive airborne protections (high-quality masks, air quality monitoring, air cleaning). Food service workers faced challenging decisions surrounding isolation, quarantine, testing, masking, vaccines, and in-home transmission, described anxiety, depression, and substance use as top mental health concerns, and described long-term physical and financial concerns. Focus groups provided qualitative examples of concerns experienced by food service workers and narrowed topic prioritization. The rapid qualitative assessment identified key needs and opportunities, with help reducing in-home COVID-19 transmission identified as a top priority. COVID-19 mitigation scientists offered recommendations for reducing in-home transmission. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced food service workers to experience complex decisions about health and safety, stress and mental health concerns, and longer-term concerns. Challenging health decisions included attempting to avoid an airborne infectious illness when employers were mainly only concerned with droplet precautions and trying to decide protocols for testing and isolation without clear guidance, free tests, or paid sick leave. Key mental health concerns were anxiety, depression, and substance use. Longer-term challenges included Long COVID, lack of mental healthcare access, and financial instability. Food service workers suggest the need for more research aimed at reducing in-home COVID-19 transmission and supporting long-term mental health, physical health, and financial concerns. This research provides an illustrative example of how to cultivate community-based partnerships to respond to immediate and critical issues affecting populations most burdened by public health crises.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 14 82%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Psychology 1 6%
Unknown 14 82%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 25 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,492,553
of 25,934,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,713
of 17,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,802
of 364,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#21
of 433 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,934,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,939 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 364,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 433 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.