Academic Article you are mentioned in

1 23
American Journal of Community
Psychology
ISSN 0091-0562
Volume 51
Combined 1-2
Am J Community Psychol (2013)
51:30-42
DOI 10.1007/s10464-012-9498-6
Digital Animation as a Method to
Disseminate Research Findings to the
Community Using a Community-Based
Participatory Approach
Nicole A. Vaughn, Sara F. Jacoby,
Thalia Williams, Terry Guerra, Nicole
A. Thomas & Therese S. Richmond

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Society for
Community Research and Action. This e-
offprint is for personal use only and shall not
be self-archived in electronic repositories.
If you wish to self-archive your work, please
use the accepted author’s version for posting
to your own website or your institution’s
repository. You may further deposit the
accepted author’s version on a funder’s
repository at a funder’s request, provided it is
not made publicly available until 12 months
after publication.

ORIGINAL PAPER
Digital Animation as a Method to Disseminate Research Findings
to the Community Using a Community-Based Participatory
Approach
Nicole A. Vaughn • Sara F. Jacoby •
Thalia Williams • Terry Guerra • Nicole A. Thomas •
Therese S. Richmond
Published online: 7 March 2012
Ó Society for Community Research and Action 2012
Abstract Community-based participatory research
(CBPR) has garnered increasing interest over the previous
two decades as researchers have tackled increasingly com-
plex health problems. In academia, professional presenta-
tions and articles are major ways that research is
disseminated. However, dissemination of research findings
to the people and communities who participated in the
research is many times forgotten. In addition, little scholarly
literature is focused on creative dissemination of research
findings to the community using CBPR methods. We seek to
fill this gap in the literature by providing an exemplar of
research dissemination and partnership strategies that were
used to complete this project. In this paper, we present a
novel approach to the dissemination of research findings to
our targeted communities through digital animation. We also
provide the foundational thinking and specific steps that
were taken to select this specific dissemination product
development and distribution strategy.
Research dissemination Á Digital animation Á Community
based participatory research Á Youth violence
Introduction
A core tenet of research is that it is not complete until
findings are disseminated. In academia, professional pre-
sentations and peer-review articles are the major methods
by which research is disseminated (Chen et al. 2010).
Equally important, however, is the dissemination of find-
ings to the people and communities who participated in the
research. Unfortunately, this is not always done. For many
researchers, dissemination outside of the academic setting
is uncharted territory (CTSA Consortium 2008). When
research findings are disseminated, it is often narrowly
targeted to specific segments of the community such as to
care providers (Katon et al. 2010). It is often pro forma—
involving one or two presentations, distribution of a short
summary statement, or exclusively targeted to policy
makers (Isumi et al. 2010). All of these dissemination
strategies are important, but each alone is insufficient.
To diffuse research findings, both dissemination and
knowledge utilization are important in order to improve the
health of populations and change provider practice. In this
paper, we focus on dissemination of research findings
garnered from a community-based participatory research
(CBPR) project that was focused on reducing youth vio-
lence in urban communities. The impetus of our dissemi-
nation strategies was driven from the thoughtful input of
our community partners. The strategies recommended by
N. A. Vaughn Á T. Williams
Department of Health Management and Policy, Philadelphia
Collaborative Violence Prevention Center (PCVPC), Drexel
University, School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA
S. F. Jacoby
Biobehavioral and Health Sciences Department, School of
Nursing, PCVPC, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA,
USA
T. Guerra
ACHIEVEability, PCVPC, Philadelphia, PA, USA
N. A. Thomas
School of Medicine, Philadelphia Area Research Community
Coalition, PCVPC, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
PA, USA
T. S. Richmond (&)
Biobehavioral and Health Sciences Department, School
of Nursing, PCVPC, University of Pennsylvania, Fagin Hall
Room 331, 418 Curie Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
e-mail: terryr@nursing.upenn.edu
123
Am J Community Psychol (2013) 51:30–42
DOI 10.1007/s10464-012-9498-6
Author's personal copy

our community partners are consistent with CBPR princi-
ples and synchronous with the growing use of social net-
works and the emerging empirical evidence supporting the
importance of interpersonal contact through social network
media to effectively disseminate influential findings
(Beaudoin and Thorson 2007; Green et al. 2009).
In this paper, we present a novel approach to the dis-
semination of research findings to our targeted communities
through digital animation. We provide the foundational
thinking and steps taken to select the specific dissemination
product development and distribution strategy. We present
this process as it unfolded over several years to: (1) indicate
the value of the academic-community partnerships, (2)
explicate the complexity of the process in which both part-
ners needed to listen and act with open minds, (3) emphasize
the need for patience with the process, and (4) highlight the
contribution of our dissemination strategy to youth devel-
opment and capacity-building in our targeted communities.
Background
Community-based participatory research has garnered
increasing interest over the previous two decades as
researchers have tackled increasingly complex health prob-
lems. Socially complex problems that are deeply embedded
in the physical, cultural, economic, and political environ-
ments lend themselves to a CBPR approach (Burdine et al.
2010). The paradigm shift to CBPR, where the community is
included as an equal partner in all aspects of the research
process, profoundly affects research and its products. Mon-
tero (2009) states that ‘‘…the voice of the people creating,
transforming, preserving, and influencing [the work]…-
should be heard’’. This shift in community being ‘‘at the table
and heard’’ has resulted in increasingly rich research that is
relevant to the community and to the social aspects of
important health problems. Despite the many successful
projects using CBPR principles, many times it becomes
difficult for researchers, community and academics alike, to
ensure that ‘‘dissemination of findings and knowledge to all
partners’’ is achieved (Chen et al. 2010). Adequate dissem-
ination of findings to the community is important for many
reasons, including translation of findings into practice, but
also because community partners’ continued engagement in
CBPR activities is contingent on whether they experience
personal and community benefits (Israel et al. 2006). Finally,
when work is ‘‘carried out with community…for benefit
of the collective, [it] leads to greater awareness and
belonging’’ (Montero 2009).
One socially complex problem that is amenable to CBPR
is youth violence. Homicide remains the leading cause of
death among African American males and females between
the ages of 10 and 24 years (CDC 2010). In response to the
public health impact of youth violence in urban areas the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded
Academic Centers of Excellence for Youth Violence Pre-
vention (ACE) and Urban Partnerships-Academic Centers of
Excellence for Youth Violence Prevention (U-PACE). The
Philadelphia Collaborative Violence Prevention Center
(PCVPC) is a U-PACE that is committed to a CBPR model.
Structurally, PCVPC is comprised of four cores: (1)
Administrative and Infrastructure; (2) Research; (3) Infor-
mation; and (4) Communication and Dissemination. Each
core operates as a type of department within PCVPC with
academic and community co-directors and members who
attend meetings and ensure the work of the core is carried out
with a focus on the overall mission. For the research study
and dissemination project described in this paper, there was
work conducted within as well as between the research (i.e.,
designing and conducting initial focus group research),
administrative (i.e., developing evidence-based violence
prevention tips) and communication and dissemination (i.e.,
animation work and community dissemination strategies)
cores. In conducting violence prevention work in Philadel-
phia, PCVPC has designed, implemented, analyzed and
interpreted research projects that reflect academic-commu-
nity partnerships in all phases of the project. Finally,
authorship on all of our presentations and professional
manuscripts reflects this central commitment to partnership.
At the beginning of the development and design of the
PCVPC research studies, the youth homicide rate in these
communities was 5 times the national rate (Centers for Dis-
ease Control 2006). Children living in these low-resource
communities are confronted by environmental risks including
poverty, less access to school resources, lower quality hous-
ing, and poorer municipal services (Evans 2004). Despite the
vulnerabilities present in PCVPC’s partner community (e.g.,
poverty, crime, truancy, and poor high school graduation
rates), the community has a number of assets. These assets
include strong churches, committed community-owned
businesses, relatively stable residential population, a mature
public transportation system, and youth programs in recrea-
tioncenters.Finally,communityleadershipisstrongandthese
leaders are active and passionate about improving their
community. Academic and community partners came toge-
ther to develop PCVPC from its inception with leadership
activities equally shared between academic and community
partners, financial support from research grants going to both
academic and community partners, and a full partnership in all
aspects of the research process. Sustainability and building
capacity in the community across adults and youth was a well-
defined priority of the PCVPC.
Over the first several years, PCVPC academic and
community researchers focused on the implementation of
co-designed research projects, analyzing and interpreting
findings, and disseminating those findings at professional
Am J Community Psychol (2013) 51:30–42 31
123

meetings and in publications. As projects came to comple-
tion, we sought avenues to effectively disseminate the find-
ings to our communities. We looked to the literature to seek
recommendations for the best practices in dissemination to
youth and adult members of urban communities. The bulk of
scholarly publications on CBPR focused on strategies to
develop the ‘front end’ of the CBPR process, including
developing partnerships, jointly designing and implement-
ing research studies, financial distribution of grant support
across academia and community partners, and making con-
nections with ethnic media to promote action and research
(Redwood et al. 2010; Trinh-Shevrin et al. 2007).
In a recent systematic review, researchers evaluated
studies using CBPR to describe ways to disseminate research
beyond publications. Results of this review indicated that
only 48% of publications identified strategies used for broad
community dissemination (Chen et al. 2010). The modes of
dissemination described included word of mouth, use of
flyers, the media, and most commonly through community
meetings. Chen et al. (2010) contacted the authors of
included studies and requested authors to submit additional
information via a web-based survey about research dissem-
ination and 84% reported dissemination of results to the
general public. Thus, it is likely that dissemination activities
are under-reported in academic publications. In addition,
little scholarly literature is focused on specific as well as
creative dissemination of research findings to the community
using CBPR methods. We seek to fill this gap in the literature
by providing an exemplar of research dissemination and
partnership strategies that were used to complete this project.
Project Description
Philadelphia Collaborative Violence Prevention Center has
a portfolio of research studies, all of which focus on youth
and youth violence in its targeted communities. In this
section, we describe in detail the steps taken from the
completion of one of the research studies to dissemination
of the project findings to the community (see Table 1). The
Table 1 Overview of digital animation development
Phase Activities and processes Duration
1. Negotiating dissemination
strategy
Discussion of potential dissemination strategies with Community Advisory Board (CAB)
Consultation with PCVPC members
1 month
2. Translating research into
vignettes
Summer research intern identifies prime narratives from qualitative interview transcripts
Development of vignettes amenable to comic/cartoon/animation
Linking vignettes to evidence-based tips
Eliciting feedback from CAB
3 months
3. Engaging potential artists Local artists in comic, cartoon, and animation media interviewed and samples of work
obtained
Discussion of the goals and philosophy of PCVPC to ensure that artists would be amenable to
engaging in an iterative and youth-centered development process
1 month
4. Youth focus groups:
communication and media
2 Youth focus groups conducted to elicit: local youth communication norms, access to media,
validation of acceptability of vignettes, prioritization of vignettes for development, ranking
of acceptability and attractiveness of potential media platforms
Discussion of focus group reports with PCVPC members
Hiring animator based on youth perspective
1 month
5. Engaging a Youth Advisory
Board
Recruitment and development of Youth Advisory Board (YAB) 2 months
6. Youth focus group: animation
storyboards
1 Focus group conducted with animator to discuss: storyboards for animation development,
animation style and vignette content
1 month
7. Rescripting vignettes Members of YAB rescript vignettes to reflect local youth-appropriate environment, situation
and voice
2 weeks
8. Voice-over sessions Recruit YAB members, focus group participants, and community leaders to provide voice to
the animated characters
Conduct two recording sessions
2 weeks
9. Animation development,
feedback and finalization
Animator created animated shorts
Feedback on shorts from YAB and PCVPC members integrated into finalized versions
Presentation of shorts and recognition of all contributors at PCVPC community symposium
Use of main animated characters for advertisement on mass transit system
Creation of Facebook page
3 months
32 Am J Community Psychol (2013) 51:30–42
123

purpose of this mixed methods research study was to elicit
perspectives from community youth in their own words, on
the assets available and stressors affecting them in the
community (Teitelman et al. 2010). Throughout the pro-
cess of working on this dissemination project, community
voice was paramount. Since the focus of the Center was
using CBPR approaches for violence prevention, the
community was consulted from the beginning of the Cen-
ter. It is important to note that the community members
were a functioning group and working in partnership with
the Center as well as with other non-Center health dis-
parities research projects. The academic partnership with
the Center was ‘‘on their agenda’’ and they made the col-
lective decision to partner on this violence prevention
project for their community. Through the community
coalition—Philadelphia Area Research Community Coali-
tion (PARCC)—the community selected all of the com-
munity co-directors for PCVPC with no input from the
academic researchers. In addition, the community identi-
fied key leaders and potential community advisory board
members (CAB) who were ultimately invited to serve on
the 5-year advisory board for the Center based on their
interest and expertise. The CAB is comprised of 10 com-
munity leaders with expertise in youth and adult pro-
gramming, media dissemination, and community relations.
The CAB was established at the inception of the PCVPC
and provides feedback on the direction of the Center’s
research and dissemination efforts.
The academic and community researchers who ran the
assets and stressors study, were invited to a PCVPC CAB
meeting to present and received feedback on best modes of
community dissemination. In this meeting, the research
findings were reviewed and questions posed were discussed
and answered, to ensure that the CAB members understood
as clearly as possible the purpose and results of the research
study and the type of findings that would be disseminated.
The key recommendations from this meeting were: (1) target
findings to both adults and youth in the community; (2)
include community youth in the dissemination process and
keep the CAB informed; and (3) move beyond only reporting
findings, but give concrete strategies that community mem-
bers can take to put the findings into action.
The research team discussed the advice given from the
CAB and decided that the qualitative findings from the
mixed methods research study would be most appropriate
for initial dissemination and would specifically address the
recommendations. This decision was based on the premise
that quantitative data (numbers) would not speak as ‘‘elo-
quently’’ to the community as stories that could be derived
from the qualitative research data.
In translating the qualitative data to a dissemination
product, we wanted to assure that no youth could be
identified and thus did not want to use direct quotes from
the interviews. To this end, we engaged a summer research
intern to review all of the de-identified transcripts of the
qualitative interviews and to identify vignettes that could
be translated into a narrative or story form. The intern first
identified 8 potential story lines and generated a narrative
that told the story of the data (i.e., ‘‘staying true’’ to the
data) but was instructed to avoid any use of direct quotes
from the interviewer or youth. This process yielded the 8
initial story lines with themes that were most salient from
the data for the dissemination project. The initial scripts
were created by an intern (an African American male
college student), but were re-scripted based on input from
local Philadelphia teenagers working as a part of the
Center’s outreach team and youth advisory board. Ulti-
mately, 5 story lines were selected for full development by
the youth participating in focus groups.
The CAB specifically recommended that any dissemi-
nation product should include specific action steps that
could be taken by community members. To accomplish
this, the story lines were linked with evidence-based action
steps that could be taken by youth, adults, and public
officials to support youth and reduce violence in the
community. Academic and community researchers work-
ing with PCVPC in the administrative core had recently
completed a project in which 55 evidence-based tips to
reduce youth violence were developed to support its overall
role as a data-driven group focused on youth violence
prevention in the region. Tips were selected based on their
alignment with the qualitative data from the interviews.
The interviews were turned into scripts and the salient
messages from the youth interviews were mapped onto the
evidence-based tips. This developed resource provided an
ideal way to link the research findings to evidence-based
action steps (see Table 2).
After solidifying iterations of the vignettes and then
linking them with the evidence-based tips to the satisfac-
tion of the research team, we took this product to other
community members involved with PCVPC to get their
feedback. Overall feedback was positive, but community
members indicated youth would not read this information
as a column in the local newspapers. One community
member, who served as a co-director for the Center’s
research core, was also involved in the research study and
recommended developing comics from the story lines for
placement in a local newspaper. The CAB confirmed the
comic recommendation as a potential vehicle for dissemi-
nation. Subsequently, a small group of youth working with
the Center was informally queried on the idea of comics
and asked if their peers would read comics. The youth
indicated that their peers would be more likely to view
animation. This idea of animated messages was consistent
with feedback we received from our community partner
organizations as well as the CAB.
123

The need to broadly reach community youth by
continuing to include them into the process was discussed
during the CAB meeting. Thus, in the summer of 2009, a
small group of youth working with the Communication and
Dissemination Core gave their ideas and thoughts to the
project by reviewing the initial idea of moving from a
comic to an animated end product. It is important to note,
however, that the decision to use animation was not
solidified until formal focus groups with youth were
completed (these focus groups are described in a sub-
sequent section). Additionally, this small group of youth
gave valuable feedback for the development of a PCVPC
Youth Advisory Board (YAB). They described the types of
youth that would be interested, incentives and a preferred
meeting schedule for their peers. The Center’s inaugural
YAB was seated for the 2010–2011 academic year and
youth from the YAB were involved in the development,
refinement and approval of the final characters. Both the
YAB and CAB members were updated during their
respective meetings throughout the process of developing
the characters and the animations in order to capture
ongoing community feedback and input.
After this feedback was received, the vignettes and early
iterations of potential dialogue provided a starting point
from which to elicit perspectives from a formal focus group
of community youth to support an effective and relevant
dissemination plan. To prepare for the focus groups, three
different artists (a cartoonist, a team of comic artists and an
animator) all of whom had experience working on the
creation of social and/or health-promoting media were
interviewed and made aware of the goals of the project.
Examples of each artist’s work were gathered in a portfo-
lio. This portfolio was used as visual material to be pre-
sented to focus groups to elicit opinion on the following
themes: youth communication, popular information dis-
semination forums, desired forms of artistic translation of
study findings, and overall acceptability of comic vignettes.
Two focus groups were planned and youth between the
ages of 10–16 years living in West and Southwest Phila-
delphia were recruited by using flyers and word of mouth.
Focus group guides were developed and adjusted for con-
tent appropriate to participants in the age range of 10–13
and 14–16. The two focus groups were carried out on
weekdays during after-school hours just prior to the end of
the school year at an easily accessible community recrea-
tion center. The incentives for participation included a pass
to a local movie theater, tokens for travel and refreshments
during the course of the 2-h sessions. Approximately half
of the participants for each focus group responded to a
recruitment flyer and registered for participation. The
remaining half was recruited directly on-site.
The first focus group comprised of one male and five
female participants between 14 and 16 years old. Two
researchers associated with PCVPC conducted the groups
(a community mobilizer with several years experience in
community-based research and a doctoral student with
experience conducting focus groups). All participants were
made aware that the session was being audiotaped and
would be transcribed in a de-identified manner for the
purpose of creating a focus group report. Examples of
questions that comprised the focus group interview guide
are illustrated in Table 3.
Table 2 Behind the animation: using evidence-based ‘TIPS’ for violence prevention
Animated message Evidence-based rationale Reference(s)
Young people have a lot to offer if you let them: help
connect them to businesses and organizations that can
value their energy, vision, and potential
Youth gainfully employed are less likely to engage or
involve themselves in risky behaviors. Youth who work in
high school are less likely to engage in negative behavior
or drop out than their peers who do not work
Stone and
Mortimer
(1998)
Good friends matter Positive friends can influence youth to practice safe behavior
and good study habits, while negative friends can pressure
youth to do things that are not in their best interest
Nelson and
DeBacker
(2008)
Practice ways to calm down before you are in a conflict Practicing ways to control anger can prevent tense situations
from escalating into violent interactions
Guerra et al.
(1996)
Use the wisdom in your community It is important for youth to have access to individuals in the
community who set an example by attitude, behavior, and
thought process. Community experts and leaders serve as
powerful resources for young adults linking them to helpful
resources and support
Pepper (2007),
Saegert and
Winkel (2004)
Being hurt can lead to later violence Youth victims of violence may respond to emotional or
physical injury through retaliatory actions. This behavior
put youth at higher risk re-injury. It is necessary for those
in contact with the victim to understand this and make
every effort to aid their recovery
Cooper et al.
(2000),
Kellerman
(1998)
123

One of the main findings regarding youth communica-
tion was that text messaging and emailing on personal
cellular phones are the most common communication
strategies employed among their peer group. All partici-
pants reported that they and the vast majority of their
friends had personal cellular phones with Internet capa-
bility. The most common media-sharing site referenced
was YouTube along with the most common networking
site, Facebook. None of the participants reported reading
newspapers; the Internet was both the most common and
most trusted source of information.
The focus group participants provided feedback on the
vignettes and all agreed that the vignettes presented sce-
narios that could realistically occur in their neighborhoods.
Youth rated their acceptance/preference of the vignettes.
Realism and humor were the two qualities most valued in
the vignettes and served as the basis for preference choices.
There was a general consensus that in comparing cartoons,
comics, and animation examples, animation was the most
appealing form of visual media by which to present the
vignettes. All agreed that they would rather view a vignette
than have to read it and would be more likely to send a
video than a comic or cartoon to a friend.
The second focus group included 12 participants aged
10–13 years (1 female and 11 males). In agreement with the
responses received from the older cohort, text messaging
using personal cellular phones and internet-based conver-
sation were stated as the predominant way by which youth
and their peer group communicated. Despite their younger
age, the group stated that having a personal cellular phone
and access to the internet were the norm. All youth reported
frequent use of YouTube to view videos. All were also
familiar with and regularly used social networking websites
like Facebook. During the discussion of the vignette content,
there was a general agreement that the vignettes presented
scenarios that could realistically occur in their neighbor-
hoods. It was more difficult, however, to have these younger
youth rank the vignettes according to preference or explicate
the rationale behind their ranking choices. In parallel to the
responses of the older cohort, the group consensus was that
animation scenarios are more appealing than that of comic or
cartoon art. All agreed that they would rather view a vignette
than have to read it and would be more likely to send a video
rather than a comic to a friend. As in the older cohort, this
cohort emphasized the importance of realism (whether ani-
mated or not) in making a vignette appealing.
Summary reports of both focus groups were created and
disseminated to the project working group. The five most
preferred and well-accepted vignettes were chosen for
further development. Of the artists initially contacted, the
animator was re-interviewed and hired to create animated
shorts that reflected the content and meaning of each of the
five vignettes and the associated evidence-based tips. As
part of his contract, the animator was asked to participate in
an iterative product development process in which youth
voice and feedback would be integral to character and
storyboard development and design.
Storyboard Focus Group
Authenticity of the characters and surrounding environ-
ments was of the utmost importance in order to make the
vignettes more appealing and engaging for today’s youth.
Therefore, another focus group was held with youth
between the ages of 10–17 to review the storyboards
designed by the animator. Flyers and word of mouth were
used to recruit youth participants for this session. As an
effort to attract and recruit more youth to participate, flyers
were hand delivered, electronically sent, and mailed to
PCVPC’s CAB, community partners and sites such as
churches and recreation centers in the targeted areas, and
researchers who conduct and/or have conducted work
within the targeted areas. Additionally, youth participants
from the previous two focus groups were contacted by
Table 3 Examples of youth focus group interview questions
Youth communication:
1. How do you and your friends communicate with each other?
2. What is your experience with the Internet?
3. How do you use the Internet?
a. Where do you have access?
b. What do you typically use the Internet for?
c. What about your friends?
d. Do you visit sites like YouTube?
e. What about Face book? Or Myspace?
f. Are there other sites that you and your friends use to send
messages to each other?
In response to the violence prevention vignettes:
1. Overall, what do you think of these stories?
a. What do you think of the main points of the stories?
b. Do you think they are important for you and your life?
c. Do you agree with the main points of these stories?
i. Why?
ii. Why not?
2. Which ones do you think are the most important and which
ones seem less important?
a. Why?
In response to examples of comics, cartoons, and animation as
platforms for vignettes:
1. What do you think of these different ways to illustrate stories?
a. Why?
b. If you were going to order them from most interesting/
attractive to least interesting/attractive how would you do
that? Why?
123

phone and invited to participate. The focus group was
carried out on a weekday during mid-morning hours in an
office building of a local hospital in Philadelphia. Youth
participants received a ten dollar gift card to a local movie
theater and two public transportation tokens to cover
transportation to and from the session. Additionally,
refreshments were provided after the session.
A total of 6 youth participated in the session, 5 males
and 1 female, in addition to 2 parent/guardians, both
females, stayed throughout the session to assist with
supervision of the youth. One of the male youth partici-
pants was a member of the PCVPC YAB. Consonant with
the Center’s focus on CBPR principles in conducting
research, co-learning and knowledge dissemination are
important. Thus, before formally starting the session, the
animator provided the youth with information about
careers in media art, particularly focusing on animation and
computer animation. In the presentation, the animator
highlighted the necessary education requirements and work
experience, showed the step-by-step process of creating an
animated episode, and discussed the roles of animators in
recent movies such as Avatar, Toy Story, and Shrek. The
animator welcomed and thoroughly answered questions
from the youth about the steps that can be taken at their age
to pursue a career in media arts as well as earnings and
employment opportunities in the field.
After providing this background, the focus group session
began and the youth participants were asked to express
their thoughts and provide their feedback and input to the
animator about the characters and the visual appearance of
the environments that would be displayed in the episodes.
The animator presented a draft sketch of the storyboard for
each of the five selected vignettes—(1) ‘‘Barbershop’’; (2)
‘‘Peer Pressure’’; (3) ‘‘Keeping Calm’’; (4) ‘‘Role Models’’;
and (5) ‘‘Retribution’’. Based on the sketch and violence
prevention tip of focus, the animator provided and
explained a summary of the characters’ features, which
included personality, dialect, and dress, as well as the
visual appearance of the surrounding environment. Youth
participants provided feedback on these aspects for each
storyboard. Youth unanimously agreed that the youth
characters’ clothing, especially those of the two main
characters, should be trendy and urban, similar to brands
and styles that they would currently wear. To make the
scenes more authentic, youth participants provided the
animator with descriptions of their own neighborhoods.
Participants also discussed the types of violent acts that
youth commit in their own neighborhoods such as chasing
individuals and damaging property.
At the end of the session, youth were invited to serve
as the voices of the characters. Along with their honorar-
ium, youth received a packet of information that included
a letter to their parent/or guardians giving a detailed
explanation of the project and the youth’s potential
involvement in the project, a PCVPC brochure highlighting
information about the Center, and a consent form for
recording and filming. Youth were instructed to give this
packet to their parent/guardian if interested in participating
in the recording and filming stage of the process. It was
strongly emphasized by the focus group moderators and
animator that youth must bring the completed consent form
to the first recording and filming session in order to fully
participate. Without the form, youth would not be able to
contribute to the recording and filming sessions.
Character Development
Previous research has shown the effectiveness of linking
characters with marketing to youth in influencing food
choice and purchasing (De Droog et al. 2011). Thus,
linking specific characters to dissemination of information
to youth was viewed as a meritorious approach. Two
members of the YAB, 1 male and 1 female, who were
between the ages of 16 and 17, collaboratively worked with
a graduate research assistant to develop and design the
main characters—Briana and Damon—whose lives are
highlighted in the animation episodes. The youth met
weekly with a graduate research assistant for 2 h to discuss
how they perceived the characters and how they wanted
other youth to perceive the characters. The youth discussed
and provided suggestions about the characters’ physical
appearance, personality, and dialect.
Voice Over Work with Youth and Community Adults
After the development of the main characters, storyboards,
and dialogue, youth and adults were recruited to participate
as the voices of the characters for the animation. Youth
participants of the focus group with parental consent par-
ticipated in this phase. In addition, the team working on
this project decided that additional adults from the com-
munity should be recruited in order to add to the authen-
ticity of the scenes. The developed vignettes required 3
additional adults (i.e., barbershop owner, store owner and
teacher). Adults from the community who currently work
in these roles were recruited to play these parts. A local
community-based organization offered the use of their
space for the voice over work and the animator was able to
capture audio of the local environment to add to the ani-
mations. Refreshments were provided and public trans-
portation tokens were provided to defray the costs of
coming to the location. Each adult participant and parent/
guardian of a youth participant signed a consent form
giving permission to PCVPC to use their voice and images
for dissemination purposes. In addition, minor youth par-
ticipants gave verbal assent for their participation.
123

Community Symposium
Each year, PCVPC holds a community-wide symposium to
deliver information and discuss the research progress of the
Center. The attendees of the symposium include commu-
nity leaders, residents and representatives from commu-
nity-based organizations and programs. The project team
decided that the focus on youth from the advisory boards
and the animation projects should be featured during the
annual symposium. As a part of the planning, the youth and
adult talent for the animation project were invited to attend
the symposium along with their family and friends. The
first 2 animated clips in the series were premiered during
the symposium and the voice talents were honored and
recognized. The animated clips were well received by the
community audience of approximately 150 attendees.
Creation of Facebook Page
Consonant with the focus group recommendations, the
social media website—Facebook—was suggested as a
dissemination tool for this project. After development of
the animated episodes, a community Facebook page was
created with the goal of reaching a wide range of audiences
with a particular focus on youth in Philadelphia. The
community page, which highlights Briana and Damon,
displays the animated episodes as well as information
about the PCVPC and its youth violence prevention efforts
in the West and Southwest Philadelphia communities (to
view on Facebook see ‘Briana and Damon Violence Pre-
vention’). The page also features a discussion board in
which supporters can participate in a dialogue with each
other and members of the Center by asking and answering
questions about youth violence prevention as well as gather
resources and local event information for youth.
Center Branding and Marketing of Animated
Characters
Academic and community researchers decided to use the
main characters for the animation project (i.e., Briana and
Damon) as the brand for the Center. In order to ensure that
dissemination of this work was widespread in our target
neighborhoods, we queried our CAB for mass media
marketing outlets. The CAB identified a local utility
company that runs a marquee on the top of one of the
tallest buildings in the city, the public transit system, as
well as local newspapers and radio stations. We began
researching the cost and feasibility of each of the recom-
mendations. Initially, we discussed target audience, mes-
saging, and design. After assessing reach, audience, and
cost, we came to consensus and began work with the local
transit system in Philadelphia to design advertisements
featuring these 2 characters with one of the evidence-based
tips from the Center. As the ad was developed, the youth
and adults from the community remained active in the
review process to ensure acceptability of design and mes-
sage. A copy of the final ads can be found in Figs. 1 and 2.
Discussion
The public health approach to youth violence prevention
culminates in dissemination of information to support the
adoption of evidence-based strategies to decrease violence
and injury (National Center for Injury Prevention and Con-
trol 2009). Researchers must take this final step seriously and
in this paper we described our process for dissemination of
research findings as a central part of our mission. PCVPC is
committed to fully engaging community researchers and
members in our work and understanding the best means and
modes for dissemination with our partners is central to this
process. Wallerstein and Duran (2003) posit that ‘‘best
practices of CBPR involve and promote the participation of
community members in order to transform their lives.’’ Chen
et al. (2010) describe results from their analysis that includes
dissemination to community participants and the general
public and conclude that there is wide variation in the time
and effort allocated to dissemination. Most dissemination
efforts focus on the academic products such as conference
presentations and manuscripts. While the work of PCVPC
has focused on the traditional academic dissemination
products, we have balanced our work with a distinct focus on
community dissemination of products that are co-created
with our target audience.
This work has been engaging, however, it is important to
convey that dissemination activities such as these take time.
Listening thoughtfully, while remaining focused on deliv-
ering a high quality product that is appropriate for our
audience was crucial to this project’s success. Feedback from
our community partners and youth has been positive and this
work has sparked interest in this type of dissemination of
evidence-based research in a novel way. We believe that
through this project we have worked through a number of the
CBPR principles (Israel et al. 2003). Specifically, we rec-
ognized our defined community as a unit of identity by
working in our target areas to hold community meetings,
focus groups, recruit for character development and voice
over work as well as disseminate through the local public
transportation system. We ‘‘built on the strengths and
resources within the community’’ by working with adult
leaders and youth in the community as the voice and creative
talent behind the work. We contributed to community
capacity and promoted ‘‘co-learning and empowerment’’ by
having the animator discuss career opportunities and path-
ways for youth and by providing them with the opportunity to
123

not only give their ideas and feedback but to continually
engage in the work while the animator and academics
learned about their community partners, creating meaningful
messaging for youth and community resources from the
YAB and CAB members (Cook 2008).
Finally, this overall work involved many iterations and
cycles as well as parallel processes. The PCVPC is com-
prised of researchers not only across disciplines but also
across universities and communities. With a commitment to
work across the Center’s formal core structure (e.g., research
core working with the communication and dissemination
core), the community and academic researchers were able to
maximize expertise and take actionable steps to see the
process through to dissemination. As with all CBPR projects,
this work has surfaced additional community needs and has
shown that when working together, communities can see the
direct and tangible beneﬁt of academic-community part-
nerships within the timeframe of a grant period.
Lessons Learned
Throughout this project we learned a number of valuable
lessons in using CBPR principles in disseminating research
Fig. 1 Initial advertisement introducing brand characters from PCVPC to public
123

findings directly for community audiences. The first of
these lessons includes academic expectations regarding
timelines and the ‘‘speed’’ of moving through the process.
We recognized the value of allocating additional time and
being flexible with the process for dissemination. No step
in the process could be ‘diluted’ or ‘rushed’. The CAB
meets quarterly and the YAB meets monthly, thus the
academic partners had to be respectful of presenting and
vetting the ideas through these valuable community lead-
ers. This process took a considerable amount of time given
that the YAB was formed within the last year of the pro-
ject, however, waiting for their feedback was important as
they were able to provide recommendations that could be
incorporated into the product drafts. Over time, we realize
there are efficiencies that develop and from working
through this process we feel confident that we have a
systematic process for vetting and disseminating informa-
tion with respect and input from community voices.
An important lesson learned involved including youth as
early as possible to ensure relevance and youth voice for
this project. Although youth were participants in the initial
focus groups of the mixed methods research study, there
was no formal group of youth assembled prior to the dis-
semination project. The authors of this paper (both aca-
demic and community researchers) decided early in the
process to begin to elicit youth feedback first by informally
Fig. 2 One of the still evidence-based tips advertisements from the animation feature
123

querying youth in the target age range who were working
with PCVPC, then by recruiting a formal focus group of 2
groups of youth in different age categories, and then by
working with PCVPC’s newly formed YAB.
We learned that there was a need to balance youth as
well as adult ideas involving the development of the main
characters, Briana and Damon. The youth had distinct ideas
that made the characters appealing to their peers, however,
some of these ideas were in conflict with the image PCVPC
wanted to project to the public. For example, the animator
initially created the male character with a skull and
crossbones logo on his hat and the youth did not object to
this logo. However, community and academic researchers
as well as the community liaison coordinator from PCVPC
felt this image was not appropriate for a violence preven-
tion center and the logo was changed to reflect PCVPC. All
members of the team decided that the Center logo would be
more appropriate to brand the characters as we wanted the
main characters to appear in future animations and adver-
tisements. The Center logo on the apparel of the main
characters was presented to the YAB members. After dis-
cussing with the youth the importance of consistency of
messaging and branding aligning with the Center’s mission
and the potential ‘skull and crossbones’’ logo evoking the
meaning of death, it became apparent to the youth that this
was not appropriate for a violence prevention center and
they approved of this change. Youth were more concerned
about clothing style of the characters rather than the sym-
bols used. This processing of vetting changes through the
adult as well as youth community members aided in adding
authenticity to the characters. Youth voice and recom-
mendations were definitely valued and incorporated into
the final version of the characters. They decided that the
main male character needed to carry an MP3 player with
smaller headphones than originally presented. They also
decided to change many features of the main female
character, which included pants, jewelry, hairstyle and
shoes. This process of full inclusion of youth into the
project is similar to Montero’s work which highlights that
it is important when youth ‘‘voice their opinion, ideas,
criticisms [while] taking care not to disqualify anyone’s
work, but allow learning and correcting by themselves [of]
their own work’’ (Montero 2009). Finally, YAB members
were key to the process by reworking the original dialogue
to include common expressions of their peers for the ani-
mated vignettes.
Our project focused on dissemination of research about
violence prevention. We believe that the strategies
employed to disseminate these findings are highly relevant
to many other topics. A major consideration is the
resources required for such a dissemination plan. Research
teams will have different resource limitations and each
team will have to consider how to best use those resources
to jointly reflect community and academic voice. Our
decision to use print advertising and develop animated
vignettes was based on the fact that print advertising was
the most reasonably priced in our geographic region and
the animator we worked with was extremely talented yet
willing to charge reduced fees as he considered this a
community service project. There is an array of choices in
creating a product from using amateurs in the community
to students at local colleges and professionals. We under-
stood that animation was chosen based on the youth data
from the focus groups and that animation required a high-
level of technical skills. With commitment and resource-
fulness, we were able to balance the desired product within
time and budget constraints were important for our work.
While this paper focused on messaging meant to target
youth and adults, there were additional products developed
by the Communication and Dissemination core of PCVPC
specifically for adults from the target community. Other
research projects from the Center were turned into com-
munity research briefs with a focus on lay audiences and
were distributed through a partnership with a widely read
local community newspaper. The process for developing
these products is beyond the scope of this paper. Addi-
tionally, there were no direct methods to directly assess the
attractiveness of our advertisements for adults from the
target community. However, adults from the target com-
munity were in positions of leadership within the Center
(i.e., community liaison coordinator) and gave their candid
feedback on all of the dissemination products.
Finally, we recognize that there was a small group of
youth for the focus group and also who were members of
the YAB and that these youth may not be representative
of all youth in the community. Yet many youth involved
described themselves and their immediate friends as
receiving both positive and negative influences. The intent
of our messages through our vignettes and advertisements
was not to isolate or stigmatize youth who may be less
‘‘well-adjusted’’ but to provide opportunities to promote
positive evidence-based messaging irrespective of the
youth’s circumstances. The community members of the
research team as well as the CAB members made this point
extremely clear. The messages were meant to depict the
reality for youth while giving them the language of positive
alternatives to violence.
Next Steps
While there were lessons learned from this project, there
are definite limitations of this work. We know that by
working with both youth and adults from the community
that our end products reflect community voice, however,
we do not know the effectiveness of our dissemination
123

strategy to use animated characters in advertisements and
animated vignettes. The focus of this research project was
to be responsive to the recommendations of our community
partners, CAB, YAB and to reach a wider community
audience of youth and adults with violence prevention
messaging that included specific strategies that they could
employ. There was a focus on youth with the messaging of
the animated vignettes, however, we wanted to ensure that
the advertisements incorporated the evidence-based mes-
sage with action steps for both youth and adults. We know
that the advertisements we have developed with the
PCVPC main characters have been viewed and are
approved by community audiences (e.g., symposium). We
also know that the ridership of the local trains in our tar-
geted neighborhoods over the course of our advertising
period reaches approximately 1,428,000 riders every
28 days. Advertisements are run for 60 days. Formally
evaluating the appeal and the effectiveness of the mes-
saging as well as determining if the advertisements
increase traffic to the PCVPC website is yet to be deter-
mined. A more focused research project of the effective-
ness of our dissemination products as well as the evaluation
of content and the comprehension of the main message of
the vignettes is warranted.
In conclusion, this project has benefitted the academic
and community audiences in that we were able to develop a
systematic process for developing a dissemination
approach with and for community audiences. This meth-
odology is not confined to violence prevention but can be
used with any topic as it lends itself as a way of ensuring
that the products of research are disseminated beyond the
academic community. More research is needed regarding
these types of approaches and understanding around timely
community dissemination is important to improve research
creditability and community ideas around the real-time
benefit of quality mixed-methods research studies and
dissemination projects.
Acknowledgments Funding for this work was provided by the
cooperative agreement number 5 U49 CE001093 from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are the sole responsi-
bility of the authors and do not represent the official position of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We would like to
acknowledge the following PCVPC team members for their work
with this dissemination project, including: LaVelle King, Alvin
Rucker, Crystal Wyatt, Nigell Hester, Portia Thomas, Saburah Abdul-
Kabir, and Anna Hargrove. We would also like to acknowledge the
work of the additional members of the Communication and Dis-
semination and Research Cores of the Center who include Steve Leff,
PhD, Tom Henry, and Ayana Bradshaw. We would like to thank
ACHIEVEability and Ahmad Ajouz of Digital Media Graphix. We
would also like to thank the youth and adults that participated in the
focus groups as well as voiced the animated vignettes. Finally, we
would like to thank the PCVPC Community and Youth Advisory
Boards for their continued feedback and dedication to the process of
dissemination.
References
Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2007). Evaluating the effects of a
youth health media campaign. Journal of Health Communica-
tion, 12(5), 439–454.
Burdine, J. N., McLeroy, K., Blakely, C., Wendel, M. L., & Felix, M.
R. J. (2010). Community-based participatory research and
community health development. Journal of Primary Prevention,
31(1), 1–7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2006). Web-
based injury statistics and reporting system (WISQARS).
Retrieved March 6, 2011, from http://webappa.cdc.gov/
sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Web-
based injury statistics and reporting system (WISQARS).
Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/injury.
Chen, P. G., Diaz, N., Lucas, G., & Rosenthal, M. S. (2010).
Dissemination of results in community-based participatory
research. American Journal of Prevention Research, 39(4),
372–378.
Cook, W. K. (2008). Integrating research and action: A systematic
review of community-based participatory research to address
health disparities in environmental and occupational health in the
USA. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62,
668–676.
Cooper, C., Eslinger, D., Nash, D., al-Zawahri, J., & Stolley, P.
(2000). Repeat victims of violence: Report of a large
concurrent case-control study. Archives of Surgery, 135(7),
837–843.
CTSA Consortium. (2008). The clinical and translational science
award (CTSA) Consortium’s community engagement key func-
tion committee and the CTSA community engagement workshop
planning committee. Researchers and their communities: The
challenge of meaningful community engagement. Retrieved
March 1, 2012, from http://www.virginia.edu/provost/public/
pdf/Best_Practices_in_Community_Engagement_Summary_2007-
08.pdf.
De Droog, S. M., Valkenburg, P. M., & Buijzen, M. (2011). Using
brand characters to promote young children’s liking of and
purchase requests for fruit. Journal of Health Communications,
16(1), 79–89.
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty.
American Psychologist, 59(2), 77–92.
Green, L. W., Ottoson, J. M., Garcia, C., & Hiatt, R. A. (2009).
Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and
integration in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 30,
151–174.
Guerra, N., Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Tolan, P., & Van Acker, R.
(1996). A cognitive ecological approach to the prevention and
mitigation of violence and aggression in inner city youth. In D.
Fry & K. Bjorkyvist (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict
resolution (pp. 199–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Israel, B. A., Krieger, J., Vlahov, D., Ciske, S., Foley, M., Fortin, P.,
et al. (2006). Challenges and facilitating factors in sustaining
community-based participatory research partnerships: Lessons
learned from the Detroit, New York City and Seattle urban
research centers. Journal of Urban Health, 83(6), 1022–1040.
Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E., Becker, A., Allen, A. J., & Guzman,
J. R. (2003). Critical issues in developing and following
community based participatory research principles. In M.
Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participa-
tory research for health (pp. 53–76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Isumi, B. T., Schulz, A. J., Israel, B. A., Reyes, A. G., Martin, J.,
Lichtenstein, R. L., et al. (2010). The one-pager: A practical
123

policy advocacy tool for translating community-based partici-
patory research in action. Progress in Community Health
Partnerships, 4(2), 141–147.
Katon, W., Unutzer, J., Wells, K., & Jones, L. (2010). Collaborative
depression care: History, evolution and ways to enhance
dissemination and sustainability. General Hospital Psychiatry,
32(5), 456–464.
Kellerman, A. (1998). Preventing youth violence: What works?
Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 271–292.
Montero, M. (2009). Community action and research as citizenship
construction. American Journal of Community Psychology,
43(1), 149–161.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2009). CDC
injury research agenda, 2009–2018. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Nelson, R., & DeBacker, T. (2008). Achievement motivation in
adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 170–189.
Pepper, J. (2007). What really matters: Service, leadership, people,
and values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Redwood, D., Lanier, A., Kemberling, M., Kleika, J., Sylvester, I., &
Lundgren, K. (2010). Community-based participatory research in
a large cohort study of chronic diseases among Alaska adults.
Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 4(4), 325–330.
Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (2004). Crime, social capital, and
community participation. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 34(3), 219–233.
Stone, J., & Mortimer, J. (1998). The effect of adolescent employ-
ment of vocational development: Public and educational policy
implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53(2), 184–214.
Teitelman, A., McDonald, K., Wiebe, D. J., Thomas, N., Guerra, T.,
Kassam-Adams, N., et al. (2010). Youth’s strategies for staying
safe and coping with the stress of living in violent communities.
Journal of Community Psychology, 38(7), 874–885.
Trinh-Shevrin, C., Islam, N., Tandon, S. D., Abesami, N., Hoe-Asjoe,
H., & Rey, M. (2007). Using community-based participatory
research as a guiding framework for health disparities research
centers. Progress in Community Health Partnerships, 1(2),
195–205.
Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2003). The conceptual, historical, and
practice roots of community based participatory research and
related participatory traditions. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein
(Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health
(pp. 27–52). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
123

Academic Article you are mentioned in

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Academic Article you are mentioned in

Similar to Academic Article you are mentioned in (20)

Academic Article you are mentioned in