3.D.4
Explaining changes to prevention with stakeholders
Énoncé de compétence 3.D.4 d’ASPPB : Explain rationale for modifying or changing prevention strategies with clients and other stakeholders and integrate their input into an updated plan
Prevention programs belong to communities as much as to professionals, so changing one means explaining why and building stakeholders' input into the new plan. Psychologists share the data plainly, explain the evidence for the change, listen for the concerns behind objections, and give partners a real role in deciding how the change is made and judged. Community-based participatory approaches treat community members as partners in every phase of the work.
Notions clés
- Community-based participatory research (CBPR)
- Community members, organizational representatives and researchers take part in all aspects of the work; partners contribute their expertise, and knowledge is joined with action that benefits the community (Israel and colleagues, 1998).
- Power and mutual benefit
- CBPR seeks to redress power imbalances, ensure mutual benefit for community and academic partners, and translate knowledge in both directions, bringing community theories into interventions (Wallerstein and Duran, 2010).
- A continuum of involvement
- Community involvement ranges from being informed or consulted to sharing decisions, and CBPR principles have evolved since 1998 with attention to structural change and health equity (Israel and colleagues, 2026).
- Sharing data plainly
- Present what the evaluation found, including what did not work, in absolute numbers rather than relative figures alone, so partners can weigh the case for change themselves (Cook and Sackett, 1995).
Exemple commenté
A city program to promote mental health among recently arrived immigrant families has held monthly talks at a church hall for two years. Attendance is steady, but few attendees who screen positive for depression complete a referral. The team proposes replacing some talks with home visits by trained community health workers, and the church worries it will lose its role.
- Share the data with all partners, including the church and the community health workers: what the talks achieved, and how many referrals were completed.
- Explain the reasoning for home visits in plain terms, and say what is uncertain, such as whether visits will be welcome in every household.
- Invite partners to shape the plan: the church might host follow-up groups or introduce health workers to families, and the health workers can advise on raising depression without stigma.
- Agree together on what will be measured, such as completed referrals by language group, and when the partnership will review the results.
Explain changes with the data, and let community partners help decide how they are made and judged.
Vérifiez vos acquis
Which practice best reflects community-based participatory research when revising a prevention program?
Sources
- Israel, Schulz, Parker and Becker (1998), Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health, Annual Review of Public Health (PMID 9611617), Abstract; key principles
- Wallerstein and Duran (2010), Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity, American Journal of Public Health (PMID 20147663), Abstract
- Israel, Schulz, Becker, Reyes, Parker and Reyes (2026), Community-Based Participatory Research: Evolution and Significant Developments, Annual Review of Public Health (PMID 41927500), Abstract; continuum of community involvement
- Cook and Sackett (1995), The number needed to treat: a clinically useful measure of treatment effect, BMJ (PMID 7873954), Abstract