MPH 509 Week 7 Dissemination Plan Example

Dissemination Plan: Cedar Grove Residents Hear the Water Findings First, Then the Owner, the Regulators and Finally the Journals

Student Name

Chamberlain University

MPH 509: Community-Based Participatory Research

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Dissemination Plan: Cedar Grove Residents Hear the Water Findings First, Then the Owner, the Regulators and Finally the Journals

Principles

This plan sets out how the Cedar Grove Drinking Water Study will share its findings. Its findings concern a single park of 212 homes whose owner also runs the water. The plan follows three principles agreed in the partnership agreement: residents hear findings first; each audience receives a product made for it; and no finding is released without the steering committee's approval, with the association able to delay release by up to 90 days to protect residents from retaliation.

A review of more than 100 studies labeled as community-based participatory research found that dissemination beyond scientific publication was reported in fewer than half of the articles, even though most authors said they had shared results with communities (Chen et al., 2010). This plan puts community dissemination first, and the partnership will report it in any publication.

The Community First

Step 1, households. Each household that had its tap water sampled will receive its own results in a visit from a community research associate, in English or Spanish, with an explanation of what each result means and what to do. This happens within two weeks of final results, before any group meeting.

Step 2, residents together. A community meeting in the congregation's meeting space will present overall findings, with interpretation and childcare. The community research associates will lead the presentation. Residents will be asked whether the findings ring true and what they want done with them, and their responses will shape the remaining steps.

Step 3, a written community report. A six-page illustrated report in English and Spanish will be delivered to every household. It will lead with what residents told the study, followed by water results, costs in dollars and hours and the changes residents said would make the water trusted.

Four Audiences, Four Documents

Table 1

Products by Audience

Note. Note. Timing counted from receipt of final laboratory and survey results.

Sequence Matters

The order is deliberate. Residents hear first because the findings are about their homes, and because some may want to act on their own results before anyone else knows them. The owner hears next, in a private meeting led by the association with the health department present, so that the owner has a chance to respond and commit to repairs before findings become public. Regulators and the county board come after, so that their response can take the owner's commitments into account. The journal article comes last, so that academic credit does not run ahead of community benefit.

Difficult Findings Planned For

Two difficult findings are possible. If water tests show the system mostly meets standards, residents' experience of discolored water and outages could be dismissed. The plan therefore presents water quality and reliability as separate findings: a system can meet standards on the days it is sampled and still fail residents through outages and sediment. If the owner reacts by threatening residents, the association can use the 90-day delay, and legal aid, an advisor to the partnership, has agreed to brief residents on their rights under the state's manufactured housing law before the owner meeting. A finding that embarrasses the health department, such as slow enforcement after past notices, will be reported, with the department's written response attached.

Authorship and Credit

Every academic product will include at least one association member as an author, with order agreed before writing. The two community research associates will be offered first or second authorship on a community-focused article, and on conference presentations they will present in person, with travel paid. The community report will credit the association first. Israel et al. (1998) list shared ownership of research products as a principle of partnership research, and this section applies it to credit as well as data.

After Dissemination

Dissemination is not the end. The partnership will hold a meeting six months after the community report to review what changed: whether the owner made repairs, whether the county board acted on the consolidation pathway and whether residents' use of tap water shifted. The committee will also review the partnership itself, using questions agreed at the start about shared decision making, trust and benefit. Jagosh et al. (2012) found that strong partnerships often generated new projects and outlasted their funding; the plan leaves room for the association to propose a next study, such as one on lot rent and housing security, with the same partners.

Formats and Access

Every product for residents will come in both of the park's languages, printed on paper and also as a short audio recording that can be shared by phone, since several older residents read little in either language. Large-print copies will be offered. The community meeting will be recorded, with residents' consent, for those who work evening shifts, and a second, shorter session will be held on a Saturday morning. The brief for regulators will be written in plain language, with technical tables in an appendix, so that county board members can follow it without an engineer present. Each product will be reviewed by the two community research associates before release to check that it would make sense to their neighbors, and any product they judge confusing will be rewritten before it goes out, however close the deadline.

Measuring Whether Dissemination Worked

The partnership will judge dissemination by what happened, not by how many reports were printed. Three measures are planned: the share of sampled households whose results were explained in person within two weeks, with a target of all 30; attendance at the community meeting and the share of attendees who could state one main finding afterward, collected on an exit card; and whether the owner, the county board or the regulators took any documented action within six months.

References

Chen, P. G., Diaz, N., Lucas, G., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2010). Dissemination of results in community-based participatory research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 39(4), 372-378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021

Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173-202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173

Jagosh, J., Macaulay, A. C., Pluye, P., Salsberg, J., Bush, P. L., Henderson, J., Sirett, E., Wong, G., Cargo, M., Herbert, C. P., Seifer, S. D., Green, L. W., & Greenhalgh, T. (2012). Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: Implications of a realist review for health research and practice. The Milbank Quarterly, 90(2), 311-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x