









































keywords:

Community-engaged research (CER), Hispanic, public 
health, key informant interviews, dental care education 

abstract
Objectives: To analyze perceptions about multiple 
community-engaged oral health research partnerships 
with various local Hispanic-serving institutions and 
community-based organizations occurring in Indiana 
from 2010 through 2020, via interviews with actors 
involved in those partnerships.  

Methods: We designed key informant interview questions 
based on a literature review to inform the approach 
at synthesizing perspectives from community partners 
and academic allies. Statements were categorized using 
thematic analysis and grounded theory. 

Lessons Learned: Forty percent of respondents stated 
that community-engaged research projects connect 
communities with educational information about dental 
care and low-cost resources. In terms of capacity 
building, about half of respondents felt these projects 
had a positive impact. 

Conclusions: Community partners defined positive 
impact as increasing access to dental care educational 
resources, helping to enhance communication networks 
through social media with community partners, and 
contributing to local Hispanic health education through 
TV, internet, and radio partnerships. The partnerships 
uniting Hispanic groups and academic allies appear to 
have helped set a foundation of trust to support current 
and future efforts in Indiana. 

introduction
Community-based research is a collaborative approach 
to conducting scholarly investigations in which power 
is shared with, and engages, community partners in 
the process, always aiming to benefit the communities 
involved. This positive interaction may happen either 
through direct changes in the life of the community, 
and/or by translating research findings into subsequent 
interventions and policy changes (Israel et al., 1998). 
There are several different types of evaluation—
process, impact, outcome, participatory, formative, and 
summative evaluations—and multiple data collection 
methods—quantitative and qualitative—that can be used 
to evaluate community-academic partnerships (Israel et 
al., 2012). 

VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  213

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S

Analyzing Perceptions of Community 
-Engaged Health Research Partnerships
Comprising Hispanic Groups and
Academic Allies in Indiana

Author
CINDY GIL, Office of Community Engagement, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) 
KARLA ARMENTA, HealthLINK Center,  San Diego State University Research Foundation 
CAMILA ESPADA, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) 
LEONEL ONTIVEROS-SALINAS, Biology Student, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) 
GERARDO MAUPOME, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) 



The present manuscript describes the findings from 
key informant interviews conducted to estimate the 
impact of multiple community-engaged research (CER) 
partnerships developed between Hispanic community 
groups and one group of academic allies in Indiana. 
We consider key informant interviews to be qualitative 
interviews because they are conducted with people who 
know “what is going on in the community,” and are 
selected for their first-hand knowledge about a topic 
of interest (USAID, 1996). The main themes from the 
interviews purported to identify improved strategies for 
enhancing community partnerships, and further support 
a framework for the integration of findings into ongoing 
research projects. 

 

methods  
 
protection of human subjects 
in research  
Permission for data collection was approved by the 
Indiana University IRB (#1703740862, #1709401236). 
Key informant interview participants did not receive 
financial compensation for their collaboration. 
 

methodological 
considerations  
Various theoretical and conceptual models provide 
frameworks for understanding and assessing how 
community-engaged research (CER) partnerships 
operate, their impacts and their outcomes. Models 
such as “The Conceptual Logic Model of Community-
Based Participatory Research” (Wallerstein & Duran, 
2010) and other theoretical models (Lasker & Weiss, 
2003; Schulz et al., 2003; Sofaer, 1999) outline 
how the structural characteristics of the partnership 
(e.g., attaining membership) influence the group 
dynamics of the partnership (e.g., communication, or 
conflict resolution). The partnership’s programs and 
interventions determine the intermediate measures or 
characteristics of partnership effectiveness (such as the 

degree of member involvement), which in turn influence 
the extent to which a partnership achieves its ultimate 
outcomes or outputs (for instance, improved community 
health outcomes).   
 

placing the present analytic 
endeavor in the context of 
prior approaches 
Our relationship with Hispanic-serving organizations 
developed through their involvement in past studies. 
Through these relationships, key leaders in the 
community were identified and asked to continue 
working with us to help disseminate resources and 
information (health education flyers and manuals) 
that emerged from our previous research projects. To 
determine the effectiveness of these partnerships we 
conducted evaluations to ascertain the effectiveness 
and sustainability of CER partnerships that may 
take different shapes and forms. Generally speaking, 
approaches that respect the types of interactions between 
partners, and that ensure balanced power relationships 
are preferred. One solid example of such an approach 
are key informant interviews as they may be used to 
explore in-depth perceptions and beliefs about CER. We 
summarize here salient CER experiences in the recent 
literature.  
 
In one study, key informants shared their perspectives 
and impressions of medical research, as based on 
personal experiences or stories from other people 
(Rodriguez et al., 2013). Interview questions ranged 
from, “When I say the words ‘biomedical research,’ 
what do you think of?” to “Would you ever participate in 
this type of research?” Key informants were also asked 
if having this type of research was important in the 
community as well as if there were any group concerns 
about having this type of research in the community 
(Rodriguez et al. 2013). 
 
The Tampa Bay Community Cancer Network (TBCCN), 
involving a cancer center and community-based 

14ENGAGE!  |  e xo d u s  &  e n t ry

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S



VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  2

organizations is another example. It used a participatory 
evaluation approach to evaluate perspectives on 
adherence to CER principles, priorities for cancer 
education and outreach, and suggestions for sustaining 
TBCCN and its efforts (Simmons et al., 2015). 
Semistructured interviews were used to assess each 
organization’s perceived role in the TBBCN partnership, 
both expected (e.g., “What were your expectations 
of TBCCN when you first became a partner?”) and 
realized benefits of the partnership, and suggestions for 
network sustainability and partner capacity building 
(e.g., “In what ways do you think TBCCN can enhance 
efforts to improve community partner capacity/skills?”) 
(Simmons et al., 2015). 
 
We used both process and impact evaluation frameworks 
in a previous CER project which enabled community 
partners to reflect on the successes and challenges of 
the partnership. In that study, semistructured interviews 
were conducted with key stakeholders, revealing main 
themes relating to the process, quality, challenges and 
value of the partnership, including navigating and 
defining equitable roles, relationships, and expectations 
of the partnership and capacity building within 
community teams and with the university team (Stacy et 
al., 2014). 
 
In another example, key informant interviews were 
used to measure the extent and impact of environmental 
change in three community-level obesity-prevention 
initiatives (Cheadle et al., 2010). Interviews with a range 
of community stakeholders were used as one of the 
short-term outcome evaluation methods. The interviews 
assessed the operations of coalition, documented the 
efforts made to change community environment, and 
assessed the impact of those changes on residents most 
directly exposed to obesity-prevention interventions 
(Cheadle et al., 2010).

 
In a case involving the Detroit Community Academic 
Urban Research Center (URC), the evaluation 

subcommittee involved academic and community 
partner representatives. They designed and conducted 
in-depth, semistructured interviews to assess the 
process by which the URC had developed and worked 
toward meeting its objectives and to assess the impact 
of the partnership (Israel et al., 2012). The topics 
covered included expectations and hopes for the first 
year of the partnership and whether they were met; 
major accomplishments, barriers, and challenges 
and recommendations for meeting them; personal 
knowledge or skills gained; tangible benefits from an 
organization’s affiliations with the URC; and examples 
of exchanges of information or assistance or support 
between partner organizations (Israel et al., 2012).

 

choice of assessment 
strategies 
Different approaches are used to design one-on-one 
qualitative interviews, varying with the degree of 
formality or informality required, the use of fully 
specified questions or topic guidelines, and the degree 
of flexibility in phrasing questions (Patton, 2002). 
Despite the different approaches, an emphasis is 
placed on asking open-ended questions, with follow-
up probes as necessary, allowing a respondent to 
provide an in-depth explanation of the issues being 
addressed. Patton (2002) noted other aspects should 
be considered, including whom to interview, where to 
conduct the interview, recording, note-taking, informed 
consent, confidentiality, and approaches for data 
analysis. Furthermore, evaluation tools have assessed 
the effectiveness of CER projects using start-point, 
mid-point, end-point, and post-project evaluations. 
Examples of indicators used at start-point evaluations 
include community capacity, organizational capacity, 
and historical context of collaboration. Indicators in 
process evaluations could inquire about involvement 
in recruiting study participants, collecting data, and 
interpreting study findings. Indicators in output 
and outcome evaluations might include academic 
publications, community presentations, and community 

15

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S



ENGAGE!  |  e xo d u s  &  e n t ry 16

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S

and organizational development (Nash, 2016). 
 
Our approach was simpler, aiming to incorporate a 
wider perspective of CER between long-standing 
community partners and academic allies that 
encompassed several projects carried out between 
2010 and 2020. The academic allies have largely 
amalgamated around a research program led by Gerardo 
Maupomé. The various CER projects have focused 
on oral health, oral health knowledge, perspectives on 
dental care and access to dental treatment; general health 
and mental well-being; food/drinks/snacks choices; 
the architecture and evolution of social networks in 
well-established and in recent Hispanic immigrants to 
Indiana (Maupomé et al., 2016; Maupomé et al., 2016; 
Pullen et al., 2018; Lopez-Owens et al., 2018; Pullen et 
al., 2019) including various aspects of acculturation and 
integration, such as use of language, adherence to new 
and old social and cultural traditions, and psychosocial 
interpretation of the world; and socio-economic-
demographic variables. Because of the diversity of CER 
projects over several years, it was unfeasible to conduct 
start-point, mid-point, end-point, and post-project 
evaluations for each project. A mosaic of projects were 
considered to estimate the perceptions of impact of 
outcomes over the 10 years of such CER collaborations 
(Appendix 1). 
 
Description of Partnerships 
Involved in the Present 
Analytic Enterprise  
We have gathered extensive data over 10 years of robust 
CER collaborations. While this poses a challenge for 
us to describe in detail each individual partnership, a 
content analysis following principles of grounded theory 
unearthed some common themes. Each partnership 
followed general features that have been replicated over 
discrete CER endeavors. Namely, 
 
1. The academic allies maintained a fluid exchange and 
collaborations on non-CER related aspects, e.g., sharing 
information about funding resources that might be  

 
attractive to community groups. The flow of information 
also included pieces relayed in the opposite direction, 
i.e., from community groups to academic allies. 
 
2. Community groups encompassed multiple entities. 
Specifically, Hispanic businesses, employers with 
large Hispanic populations, parishes and temples with 
substantial Hispanic congregations, parochial schools 
affiliated with such parishes; community advocacy 
groups; informal and formal networks targeting recent 
immigrant families, with community workers and 
volunteers being charged with supporting assimilation 
of children to American education systems (academic 
level, remedial efforts, and language acquisition). 
 
3. Community groups participated in various CER 
projects over the years – some only once, others 
multiple times. The availability of community groups’ 
resources, transition periods, financial health, and 
other varying factors led to the opportunity and the 
willingness to participate. 
 
4. Community members were always compensated for 
their time, with childcare and refreshments often being 
available. 
 
5. Community members were always compensated for 
their time, with childcare and refreshments often being 
available. 
 
6. Community members had substantive input in the 
creation of scholarly products and chose whether or not 
to be part of the authors’ line up. 
 
Explicit efforts were always present to engage 
community groups on an equal footing for research 
design with academic allies. Some specific examples of 
this include monthly (for local partners) or quarterly (for 
partners throughout the state) visits to their community 
sites and communication via email on research progress. 



G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S

VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  217

study design and population 
The key informant interview questions were developed 
based on a literature review and discussions with the 
team of community groups and academic allies. An 
interview script was created and translated into Spanish. 
Three areas were identified: research process evaluation, 
perceived value of research for the Hispanic community, 
capacity-building strategies to further engage 
community, and preferred research format for working 
with Hispanics. The team postulated that there are 
unique characteristics of Hispanic immigrants compared 
with other minoritized populations. It was our goal to 
gain greater insight into how to better design, cocreate, 
and conduct CER with Hispanics living in Indiana. The 
interviews focused on research programs involving 
Hispanic communities from Mexico, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, and Honduras, which made up most of the 
Hispanic population in the area during those years. 
 
data collection and variables 
To collect data, two university students were trained to 
complete key informant interviews. The interviews were 
conducted over the phone in either English or Spanish. 
Eligibility criteria for interviewees were a) to be a leader 
in the Hispanic community or an academic ally, b) be 
of Hispanic ancestry, and/or c) to have participated 
in any of the CER projects. Twelve key informants 
were recruited through an email invitation, identified 
from a list of community partners and academic allies 
and having been involved currently or in the past as 
supporting programs addressing health and wellness 
of Hispanics. The phone interviews took place over a 
two-week period following the email invitation. If no 
response was received, a follow-up call was made to 
make sure questions or concerns were addressed. The 
original number of planned interviews was 12, and 10 
were conducted. Interviews lasted 25 to 30 minutes and 
were audio recorded, and responses were transcribed. 
 
 

 
interviews 
Key informant interview consent was obtained at the 
beginning of the interview. No personal identifiers 
were collected. Key informants were informed that the 
interview would be recorded to ensure the collection 
of accurate information. While most interviews were 
conducted in English a few key informants preferred 
conducting their interviews in Spanish. Using a prepared 
script (Appendix 1), participants were encouraged 
to expand their responses and provide details when 
appropriate and were allowed time to think about the 
questions and responses. The script presented questions 
related to capacity-building efforts, CER related to oral 
health, and practices for building engagement through 
CER. Each key informant was interviewed individually. 
 
Interview core statements were categorized by staff. 
A number of the questions were met with a “Do not 
know” answer, or “I have no information specific to 
this question.” Rather than considering these categories 
as ambiguous, we believe respondents felt at ease to 
answer frankly during the interview. In this perspective, 
where respondents did answer the remainder of 
questions, that information did in fact signify first-
hand experience, or carefully weighed responses to the 
standardized questions. Respondents were encouraged 
to speak about their experiences and recollections of 
the projects, and they were told to omit answers for any 
reason they felt appropriate (e.g., respondents were not 
involved in that aspect of the project or did not know 
about it).  
 
data analysis 
Transcribed interviews were thematically analyzed 
using grounded theory. We developed a codebook, 
with emerging categories driven by the narratives. 
Simple frequencies and proportions of categories were 
calculated from the aggregated collection of categories 
across all respondents. 
 
 



ENGAGE!  |  e xo d u s  &  e n t ry 18

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S 

Results  
The following is a description of the key informant 
participants. A total of 10 participants (each representing 
a local Hispanic-serving institution or community-based 
organization) took part in the impact assessment study 
(seven female and three male). Five had directly worked 
as partners with the CER team, and all reported that they 
enjoyed working with the team. Below we present the 
themes that emerged during key informant interviews. 
 
Most positive aspects of project  
Forty percent of respondents stated that the CER 
studies mentioned served to connect communities with 
educational information about dental resources. Another 
40% of respondents stated that the CER projects 
increased the Hispanic public’s knowledge of dental 
care. 

Project success  
The CER projects had a positive impact among the 
Hispanic community in Indiana, according to 40% of 
key informants.  
 
Feedback from community members  
Forty percent of respondents indicated they received 
positive feedback from community regarding CER 
experiences. In fact, two respondents shared stories 
of clinicians making use of the educational material 
developed through an oral health education manual. 
 
Contribution to building capacity  
When asked if the CER studies contributed to 
building capacity in the Hispanic community, 60% of 
respondents confirmed they believed those projects 
in fact did so. Respondents were allowed complete 
control in describing how “building capacity” emerged 
from their views. Specifically, two key informants 
indicated that community members shared that the 
CER experiences helped to educate and connect the 
community to free or low-cost dental care services. We 
learned of the need for health educational resources 

from previous research projects and materials were 
developed with the participation of community. These 
resources are now used by the community to share 
health knowledge.  
 
Local assets and resources  
Key informants pointed to the potential to collaborate 
with other projects or groups who have similar goals 
of advancing health education among the Hispanic 
community. Others indicated that concrete dental care 
resources were most helpful.  
 
Activities you believe have increased a 
community’s knowledge of health topics
Informants shared that the oral health manual was 
helpful in increasing the community’s knowledge 
of health topics. Additionally, community partners 
recognized that the CER team has done strong work in 
outreach, promotion of findings from the studies, and 
recruitment of individual CER study participants.  
 
Improved process of building capacity
Key informants had various suggestions for how the 
research team could continue to build capacity in the 
Hispanic community. In fact, 40% stated that the CER 
team could work more closely with community partners, 
and 50% stated that the best way to conduct CER data 
collection was face-to-face. This supports consistent 
use of surveys done one-on-one. It was reassuring to 
find that 60% of participants thought that community 
interests were represented throughout the CER projects.

Community partners would like to receive more 
information about the status of current CER projects. 
It is clear that community members see value in 
the approach and initiatives, thus supporting this 
involvement. Suggested ways to further involve the 
community include providing updates and information 
about the events the CER team will attend. 40% of 
informants shared they would like to receive updates 
about the progress of CER projects.  



G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S

VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  219

 
education and knowledge  
Increasing access to dental health education was 
identified as vital by many key informants. Forty 
percent of respondents shared that through the CER 
projects listed, the community was able to receive 
educational information about dental care. Specifically, 
the navigation manual was utilized by the community. 
Clinicians provided examples of how patients used 
this resource to advocate for themselves during dental 
visits. The value of having resources that speak to 
targeted Hispanic communities has proven effective, 
rather than attempting to provide ‘one-size-fits-all’ 
resources meant to address concerns across all Hispanic 
communities. In the case of the navigation manual, this 
resource focused on newcomers from Central American 
countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras), 
utilizing language and cultural nuances specific to this 
population.  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
Another common theme gathered from the key 
informant interviews is that in order to continue making 

a difference for patients in dental care, Hispanic 
communities need to learn about dental care options. 
By collaborating with partners throughout the state, the 
CER team has compiled a list of low-cost or free dental 
care resources. This list is periodically updated, openly 
disseminated, and also provided to community members 
as requested. Key informants verified that this resource 
has been invaluable to increase the agency of individuals 
to have greater knowledge and advocacy tools to 
negotiate their way around dental care challenges 
 
 

 
discussion  
This is a qualitative analysis of perceptions about 
various research projects. Based on the variety of 
impressions derived from the key informant interviews, 
we learned that community groups and academic allies 
are aligned in the process of CER knowledge and 
resource cocreation of dental health education and local 
dental care resources. The CER partnerships seem to 
have led to more Hispanics living in Indiana gaining 
greater understanding about access and awareness 
of dental care. Through shared CER involvement, 
community groups take part in the decision making 
and shaping of research agendas, and academic allies 

Figure 1: A guide for the care of teeth and mouth for 
communities from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Hondu-
ras. The guide currently is being used by community 
partners throughout the state.

  The value of having re-
sources that speak to targeted 

Hispanic communities has proven 
effective, rather than attempting to pro-

vide ‘one-size-fits-all’ resources meant 
to address concerns across all Hispanic 

communities. In the case of the navigation 
manual, this resource focused on newcom-
ers from Central American countries (Gua-
temala, El Salvador, and Honduras), utilizing 
language and cultural nuances specific to 
this population...Hispanic communities.



20ENGAGE!  |  e xo d u s  &  e n t ry

gain greater clarity to guide future directions and 
engagement opportunities with the community. CER 
partnerships therefore can facilitate further engagement 
opportunities as directed by community leaders. 
Additionally, engagement should be sustainable through 
simple and accessible communication with community 
stakeholders, facilitated through paper and e-newsletters, 
open forums or roundtables, as suggested by community 
partners.  

However important our estimates may be, some 
methodological considerations apply to the 
straightforward design we created. While key informant 
interviews provide rich information and contribute to 
an enhanced understanding of evaluating community-
academic partnerships, they are labor and time 
intensive, requiring resources and skills on the part 
of the interviewer (Patton, 2002; Israel et al., 2012). 
Additional challenges include the time constraints on 
the community partners, the degree to which members 
of a CER partnership have input into the design, 
implementation and interpretations of the partnership’s 
evaluation, and whether the evaluation should be led 
by an individual or team external and without a vested 
interest in the partnership (Israel et al., 2012). Perhaps 
of greater importance is the need to recognize that the 

evaluation methods used, and the questions asked in 
partnership and impact evaluation, may need to evolve 
over time as a CER partnership evolves. Tolma et al. 
(2009) describe how community-academic partnerships 
go through different phases or stages and the dimensions 

that need to be evaluated change over time. 
Within the constraints of our approach, it appears that 
shared power and capacity building can be estimated 
through assessment efforts such as the present 
perception analysis. CER lessons may be used to 
support the implementation of actionable processes 
where new knowledge can be generated by both 
academic allies and community members, leading to 
aligned and improved partner practices that support 
better health access and equity.  

Together with other peer-reviewed and public 
announcements resources derived from the research 
enterprise under analysis, we aim to offer practical 
advice and real-world resources to support the 
acquisition of community-relevant tools. The following 
are the key takeaways from the present report:

 
1. Hispanic community partnerships can serve as a tool 
for enabling communities accessing resources. 
 
2. Through key information interviews we learned how 
community – through descriptions in their own words 
– benefitted from past community-engaged research 
projects, and also about areas that need improvement. 
 
3. Connecting to various levels of the community, above 
and beyond the specific goals of the research project, is a 
vital part of a community-engaged research partnership. 
 
acknowledgments 
The content is solely the responsibility of the authors 
and does not necessarily represent the official views of 
the National Institutes of Health, Indiana University, 
nor that of the Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public 
Health. 

The authors gratefully acknowledge the partnerships 
with numerous community members, multiple Hispanic 
groups, and various entities over the years, as well 
as the time invested by the key informant interview 
participants in conducting this assessment.

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S

Additionally, engagement 
should be sustainable through 

simple and accessible communication 
with community stakeholders, facilitated 

through paper and e-newsletters, open fo-
rums or roundtables, as suggested by com-
munity partners. 



VO L .  4  I S S U E  221

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S

Appendix 1 
Key unformant interview guide  
Informant Code: 
Interviewer Name: 

Date: 

Location of Interview: 

Interview Start Time: 

Interview End Time: 

 
Introduction 
Hello. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this 
interview to help us evaluate your partnership with a 
community-engaged research (CER) project. You are 
being asked to participate because you are a valued 
member of the community or an academic ally in 
current or past CER projects. The purpose of this 
interview is to facilitate a reflection and evaluation of 
the CER project and your partnership. We are asking 
these questions to learn about your experiences, so that 
we can better understand how the projects perform, and 
how it can be improved to better meet its mission.  

Everything you say will be strictly confidential and 
anonymous. We value your insight and expertise, 
so we’d like you to share, in your own words, the 
successes, any challenges, as well as any outcomes that 
you feel may have come from this CER project and your 
role. There is no right or wrong answer to any of the 
questions that I will be asking today. The interviews will 
be audio-recorded and transcribed by a member of our 
research team. 

Let’s begin.  
 
Demographics
1. Please describe your role in the community or the 
academic organization.

 

Process Evaluation Overall Assessment of 
the CER projects. 
1. Could you briefly describe your knowledge of or role 
in the CER projects led by Gerardo Maupome, which 
you have collaborated with?  
 
2. What were the most positive aspects of your 
involvement with the CER project? 
 
3. In your opinion, how successful was the CER 
project in the community? Did it add to the Hispanic 
community’s knowledge of health issues? 
 
4. In what ways is the CER project benefiting the 
community, or has benefitted it? Probe: How could 
the CER project improve its benefits to or value in the 
community?  
 
5. What feedback, if any, did you receive from 
community members regarding the CER project? 
 
Capacity Building 
1. Do you believe that this CER project contributed to 
building capacity in the Hispanic community? (capacity 
building: allows individuals and organizations to 
perform at a greater level) 

Yes/No 

Probe: Please explain. E.g. Increase knowledge  
 
2. To what extent and how has the CER project helped 
community organizations and members recognize and 
work with their assets and local resources? 

 
3. If applicable, which activities do you believe have 
increased a community’s knowledge of health topics as 
a result of the CER project? 
 
4. Looking forward, what suggestions do you have to 
improve the process of building capacity within your 
community?



22ENGAGE!  |  e xo d u s  &  e n t ry

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S

Research
1. What do you believe is the best way to do CER with 
the Hispanic community? 

2. Do you think that community interests have been 
represented and assured in the CER project? 

Probe: Please explain why or why not.  
 
Overall Impression
1. Given your experience with the CER project, what 
advice do you have for us in the future? 

2. Do you have any other comments and/or questions 
you feel are important to you as a key informant of this 
impact assessment?   
Probe: If yes, please describe. 

 



VO L .  4 ,  I S S U E  223

G I L  E T.  A L .  |  H I S P A N I C  H E A L T H 
R E S E A R C H  P E R C E P T I O N S

References

Cheadle, A., Samuels, S.E., Rau-
zon, S., Yoshida, S.C., Schwartz, 
P.M., Boyle, M., Beery, W., Craypo, 
L., & Solomon, L. (2010). Ap-
proaches to measuring the extent 
and impact of environmental 
change in three California com-
munity-level obesity prevention 
initiatives. American Journal of 
Public Health, 100(11), 2129–
2136. https://doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2010.300002

Israel, B.A., Schulz, A.J., Parker, 
E.A., & Becker, A.B. (1998). Review 
of community-based research: as-
sessing partnership approaches 
to improve public health. Annual 
Review of Public Health, 19(1), 
173-202. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev.publhealth.19.1.173

Israel, B.A., Eng, E., Schulz, A.J., 
Parker, E.A. (2012). Methods for 
community-based participato-
ry research for health. 2nd ed. 
[eBook edition]. Wiley. http://
ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/
iupui-ebooks/detail.action?do-
cID=918182

Lasker, R.D., & Weiss, E.S. (2003). 
Broadening participation in com-
munity problem solving: A multi-
disciplinary model to support col-
laborative practice and research. 
Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin 
of the New York Academy of 
Medicine, 80(1),14-47; discussion 
48-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/
jurban/jtg014 

Lopez-Owens, M., Starkey, K., 
Gil, C., Armenta, K., & Maupomé, 
G. (2018). The VidaSana study: 
Recruitment strategies for longi-
tudinal assessment of egocentric 
Hispanic immigrant networks. 
International Journal of Envi-
ronmental Research and Public 
Health, 15(12), 2878.

Maupomé, G., McConnell, W.R., 
& Perry, B.L. (2016). Dental 
problems and Familismo: Social 
network discussion of oral health 
issues among adults of Mexican 
origin living in the Midwest Unit-
ed States. Community Dental 
Health, 33(4), 303. https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC5457701/

Maupomé, G., McConnell, W.R., 
Perry, B.L., Marino, R., & Wright, 
E.R. (2016). Psychological and 
behavioral acculturation in a 
social network of Mexican Ameri-
cans in the United States and use 
of dental services. Community 
Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 
44(6), 540-548. https://www.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/
PMC7844983

Nash, C. (2015). Evaluating 
community based participatory 
research. Community Engaged 
Scholarship Institute. https://
atrium.lib.uoguelph.ca/xmlui/
handle/10214/8902

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative 
research & evaluation methods.  
Sage.

Pullen, E., Perry, B.L., & Maupomé, 
G. (2018). “Does this look infected 
to you?” Social network predic-
tors of dental help-seeking among 
Mexican immigrants. Journal of 
Immigrant and Minority Health, 
20(2), 399-409.

Pullen, E., Perry, B.L., & Maupomé, 
G. (2019). Talking about teeth: 
Egocentric networks and oral 
health outcomes in a Mexican 
American immigrant community. 
Advances in Medical Sociology,19, 
105-122. doi: 10.1108/S1057-
629020190000019006

Rodriguez, E.M., Torres, E.T., Er-
win, D.O. (2013). Awareness and 
interest in biospecimen donation 
for cancer research: Views from 
gatekeepers and prospective par-
ticipants in the Hispanic commu-
nity. Journal of Community Ge-
netics, 4(4), 461-468. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12687-013-0152-2

Schulz, A.J., Israel, B.A., & Lantz, 
P. (2003). Instrument for eval-
uating dimensions of group 
dynamics within communi-
ty-based participatory research 
partnerships. Evaluation and Pro-
gram Planning, 26(3), 249-262. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-
7189(03)00029-6

Simmons, V.N., Klasko, L.B., Flem-
ing, K., Koskan, A.M., Jackson, 
N.T., Noel-Thomas, S., Luque, J., 
Vadaparampil, S., Lee, J., Quinn, 
G., Britt, L., Waddell, R., Meade, C., 
Gwede, C., & Tampa Bay Commu-
nity Cancer Network Community 
Partners. (2015). Participatory 
evaluation of a community-ac-
ademic partnership to inform 
capacity-building and sustain-
ability. Evaluation and Program 
Planning, 52,19–26. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprog-
plan.2015.03.005

Sofaer, S. (1999). Working to-
gether, moving ahead: A manual 
to support effective community 
health coalitions. School of 
Public Affairs, Baruch College. 
https://www.rchnfoundation.org/
wp-content/uploads/2015/07/
Working-Together-Mov-
ing-Ahead-Shoshanna-Sofaer-1.
pdf

Stacy, E., Wisener K., Liman, Y., 
Beznosova, O., Lauscher, H.N., Ho, 
K., & Jarvis-Selinger, S. (2014). 
Community-based research in 
action: Tales from the Ktunaxa 
community learning centres 

project. Progress in Community 
Health Partnerships: Research, 
Education, and Action, 8(3), 281–
290. https://doi.org/10.1353/
cpr.2014.0044

Tolma, E.L., Cheney, M.K., Troup, 
P., & Hann, N. (2009). Design-
ing the process evaluation for 
the collaborative planning of a 
local turning point partnership. 
Health Promotion Practice, 
10(4), 537-548. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1524839907311574

USAID Center for Development 
Information and Evaluation. 
(1996). Performance monitoring 
and evaluation tips: Conducting 
key informant interviews. USAID. 
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/
PNABS541.pdf

Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. 
(2010). Community-based partic-
ipatory research contributions to 
intervention research: The inter-
section of science and practice to 
improve health equity. American 
Journal of Public Health,100(S1), 
S40-S46.  https://doi.
org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036




