|dc.description.abstract||Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is well developed in its theoretical framing and methodological approaches, yet there still exists a lack of generalized guiding information on community-engaged dissemination processes. There has been a push in the dissemination and implementation science (D&I) field towards more critically attending to community-based perspectives and influences of the ecological context. However, D&I is still limited with its bounded focus on efficacious prevention and intervention research, which not all CBPR aims to disseminate and implement. To understand not only what works in terms of community-engaged dissemination but why and how, process evaluations are particularly suited to assess these critical mechanisms of change and advance the knowledge gap. Therefore, a process evaluation case study of community-engaged dissemination was conducted. The case was an oral history (OH) project component of the Little Village Participatory Community Health Assessment (LVCHA). The research aim was to assess the implementation processes of OH community-engaged dissemination, operationalized as planned dissemination outputs, emergent dissemination outputs, unrealized dissemination outputs, and ripple effects.
The study utilized a unique multistep qualitative methodology and analysis such that directed content analyses and triangulation were used to assess diverse archival data that characterized dissemination processes (e.g. meeting notes, flyers, manuscript drafts, reports, etc.). Then, constant comparative analyses informed generalized findings across the types of dissemination to generate a collective process model. Process evaluation components - recruitment and engagement, fidelity and implementation, resources and capacity, and context – guided evaluation questions, codes, and findings. Results evidenced community-engaged dissemination as a process of adaptation to resources, capacities, and contextual influences, namely the Little Village context, counter-narrative, and power consciousness. Dissemination “success” manifested as fidelity towards a collective overarching outcome rather than fidelity towards implementing a dissemination output. This orientation towards a larger goal offered a unique way to consider dissemination “success,” which in this case study was defined as emphasizing and promoting community assets and the counter-narrative. Using the unique theoretical and methodological approach allowed for an expansive and ecologically informed evaluation study, as inclusive of non-conventional dissemination, to better inform a generalized and comprehensive community-engaged dissemination process model.||