Conducting community-based research in the community where one resides demands careful planning, sensitivity to community members’ privacy, and a strong commitment to full and respectful communication.

The AMA Code of Medical Ethics’ opinion on population-based genomic research.

Physicians working in close-knit communities, whether small towns or urban neighborhoods, have to manage relationships with people who may be simultaneously patients and neighbors, friends, and business associates.

The differences between CBPR and traditional research have been enumerated, but how to overcome them is still up for discussion, collaboration with community members is advocated, and examples are given.

The way in which the results of community-based participatory research are presented is extremely important, both for reasons of justice and cultural sensitivity and to ensure that they not unnecessarily badly received.

By failing to follow informed consent protocols and regulations, a researcher engaging in CBPR may inflict permanent harm on the participating community and chill future research among disadvantaged populations.

Around the country, CBPR partnerships are in action, assessing the social context within which community illness patterns occur.

Researchers who approach community partners with an agenda already in hand are missing the point of the community-based participatory research enterprise: developing priorities for study together.

CBP researchers are challenged to think strategically about ways to convey their accomplishments and educate their non-CBPR peers about the nature of their research, processes not required of traditional researchers.

By privileging traditional research methods in forms for research protocol approval, IRBs can unknowingly allow community partners to be harmed in CBPR. Changes to the language can help ensure appropriate sensitivity and community involvement.