Do you want to avoid the hassle of traveling with your printed poster? IAPHS2026 is pleased to make poster printing available to you through our supplier PosterSessionOnline. Your poster will be professionally reviewed, printed and shipped directly to Portland and you will be able to pick it up from the Poster desk. Click here to learn more.
Primary Submission Category: Methodological approaches to studying public health
The Use of Community-Based Participatory Research Methods to Collaborate with People Experiencing Homelessness: A Scoping Review
Authors: Lauren Love Pieczykolan, Megan Glavin, Nicole Theis-Mahon, M. Kumi Smith,
Presenting Author: Lauren Love Pieczykolan*
Background: The US is experiencing unprecedented levels of homelessness, accompanied by growing interest in research on its causes and potential solutions. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is promoted as a strategy for meaningfully involving and centering people experiencing homelessness (PEH) in this work. However, there is limited consensus on what constitutes CBPR in practice, constraining insights into its implementation and best practices. This review aims to close this gap by characterizing the extent and nature of CBPR methods currently used in homelessness research.
Methods: The search was developed for MEDLINE(R)ALL (Ovid) and translated across APA PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection, returning 801 papers. Studies met inclusion criteria if they were peer-reviewed, published in English, sampled PEH, and utilized a CBPR method. Two reviewers independently assessed evidence against the inclusion criteria.
Results: Involvement of PEH as members of community advisory boards or in consultative roles was the most common CBPR practice. Novel methods include the Docent Method where PEH physically and narratively walk researchers through sites of interest in their community, and the Appreciative Inquiry model in which PEH identify and leverage community strengths to solve problems. The level of detail with which CBPR methods were described varied greatly.
Conclusions: Preliminary findings highlight the diversity of CBPR practices, both in their implementation and how these practices are documented and disseminated. The large number of studies that cite CBPR without describing how it was implemented underscores the need for clearer reporting standards in this field. Greater consensus around practice and reporting is necessary if CBPR is to realize its potential to amplify PEH in research, integrate community knowledge and innovation into program and policy design, and mend historical harms that research has inflicted on PEH.