In recent decades, there has been remarkable growth in scholarship examining the usefulness of community-engaged research (CEnR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) for eliminating health inequities.This article seeks to synthesize the extant literature of systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and other related reviews regarding the context, processes, and research designs and interventions underlying CEnR that optimize its effectiveness. Through a scoping review, we have utilized an empirically derived framework of CBPR to map this literature and identify key findings and priorities for future research. Our study found 100 reviews of CEnR that largely support the CBPR conceptual framework.

Background: As federal research funding focuses more on academic/community collaborations to address health inequities, it is important to understand characteristics of these partnerships and how they work to achieve health equity outcomes. Objectives: This study built on previous National Institutes of Health-funded research to (a) describe partnership characteristics and processes of federally funded, community-based participatory research (CBPR) or community-engaged research projects; (b) explore characteristics of these projects by stage of funding; and (c) build on previous understanding of partnership promising practices. Methods: Between fall 2016 and spring 2017, we completed a cross-sectional analysis and principal component analysis of online survey data from key informants of federally funded CBPR and community-engaged research projects. Respondents for 179 projects (53% response rate) described project characteristics (e.g., type of partner, stage of partnership, and population) and the use of promising practices (e.g., stewardship, advisory board roles, training topics) by stage of partnership. Results: Projects involved community, healthcare, and government partners, with 49% of respondents reporting their project was in the early stage of funding. More projects focused on Black/African American populations, whereas principal investigators were mostly White. The more established a partnership (e.g., with multiple projects), the more likely it employed the promising practices of stewardship (i.e., community safeguards for approval), community advisory boards, and training on values and power. Conclusions: Community engagement is a developmental process with differences between early-stage and established CBPR partnerships. Engaging in active reflection and adopting promising partnering practices are important for CBPR partnerships working to improve health equity. The data provided in this study provide key indicators for reflection.

A growing literature explores spatial patterns of regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual) concentration. Such patterns have implications for health and wellbeing if there are differences in health-promoting or health-hindering resources in neighborhoods or regions. We conducted a systematic review to assess sexual minority concentration in relation to area unit characteristics. We included only records published after 1973 and made no exclusions by geography or language. We searched 11 databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Embase, GeoBase, GeoRef, LGBT Life, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science) on November 19–21, 2016. We searched reference lists of included records. We used the following inclusion criteria: (1) Record is a quantitative study (that is, it uses statistics to describe or associate two or more variables); (2) Record is about (a) migration or internal migration of, (b) area unit selection by, or (c) concentration of sexual minority people (defined by identity, behavior, or attraction); (3) Criterion 2 is linked to the characteristics of regions or neighborhoods (at any spatial scale). Dual independent coding resulted in 51 records meeting inclusion criteria from the original pool of 5,591. From these records, we identified the 647 reported results linking sexual minority concentration with area unit characteristics. Of these, 132 were unadjusted relationships between sexual minority concentration and four theory-informed domains of neighborhood influence on health. We identified greater concentration of sexual minorities in regions with more resources and in more urban regions. A limited but troubling literature at the neighborhood level suggested potentially higher concentrations of sexual minorities in neighborhoods with fewer resources. There are substantial gaps in the literature. We discuss the implications of our findings and gaps in relation to key theories of sexual minority health. The review was not registered with PROSPERO because it was not eligible for registration at the time of the research project’s initiation due to the outcome of interest.

Introduction: Smoking prevalence is higher among sexual minorities compared to their heterosexual peers. However, very little is known about potential racial differences in smoking among sexual minority populations. We examined differences by race in smoking status among a robust sample of sexual minorities. Methods: We used data from the 2010 Social Justice Sexuality project, a large national convenience sample of sexual minority adults that oversampled individuals from racial minority groups. Log-Poisson multivariable regression models were employed to determine the risk of current smoking among sexual minority individuals by race after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics. Results: Among smokers, 22.35% identified as White, 26.98% identified as Black, 19.38% identified as Latino/Hispanic, 5.58% identified as Asian American, and 25.67% were other/multiracial. In fully adjusted gender stratified models, Black men (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50, 0.75) and Asian American men (aRR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.50, 0.75) were at lower risk of smoking compared to White men. Black women were the only to remain statistically significant for decreased risk of smoking in fully adjusted gender stratified models (aRR = 0.78, 95 % CI = 0.65, 0.95). Conclusions: Among sexual minorities, Black and Asian American individuals consistently were at decreased risk of current smoking compared to their White peers. Future research should seek to understand the mechanisms that contribute to decreased smoking status among racial sexual minorities.

Objectives. We examined disparities in health insurance coverage for racial/ethnic minorities in same-sex relationships. Methods. We used data from the 2009 to 2011 American Community Survey on nonelderly adults (aged 25–64 years) in same-sex (n = 32 744), married opposite-sex (n = 2 866 636), and unmarried opposite-sex (n = 268 298) relationships. We used multinomial logistic regression models to compare differences in the primary source of health insurance while controlling for key demographic and socioeconomic factors. Results. Adults of all races/ethnicities in same-sex relationships were less likely than were White adults in married opposite-sex relationships to report having employer-sponsored health insurance. Hispanic men, Black women, and American Indian/Alaska Native women in same-sex relationships were much less likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance than were their White counterparts in married opposite-sex relationships and their White counterparts in same-sex relationships. Conclusions. Differences in coverage by relationship type and race/ethnicity may worsen over time as states follow different paths to implementing health care reform and same-sex marriage.