Capacity building through focus group training in community-based participatory research.

BACKGROUND: Community-based participatory research (CBPR) emphasizes collaborative efforts among communities and academics where all members are equitable contributors. Capacity building through training in research methodology is a potentially important outcome for CBPR partnerships. OBJECTIVES: To describe the logistics and lessons learned from building community research capacity for focus group moderation in the context of a CBPR partnership. METHODS: After orientation to CBPR principles, members of a US suburban community underwent twelve hours of interactive learning in focus group moderation by a national focus group expert. An additional eight-hour workshop promoted advanced proficiency and built on identified strengths and weaknesses. Ten focus groups were conducted at an adult education center addressing a health concern previously identified by the center's largely immigrant and refugee population. Program evaluation was achieved through multiple observations by community and academic-based observers. RESULTS: Twenty-seven community and academic members were recruited through established relationships for training in focus group moderation, note-taking, and report compilation. Focus group training led to increased trust among community and research partners while empowering individual community members and increasing research capacity for CBPR. CONCLUSIONS: Community members were trained in focus group moderation and successfully applied these skills to a CBPR project addressing a health concern in the community. This approach of equipping community members with skills in a qualitative research method promoted capacity building within a socio-culturally diverse community, while strengthening community-academic partnership. In this setting, capacity building efforts may help to ensure the success and sustainability for continued health interventions through CBPR.

IV immunoglobulin does not reverse established weakness in MS.

BACKGROUND: Immunoglobulin (Ig) administration induces remyelination in the Theiler's virus model of MS. METHODS: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of IV immunoglobulin (IVIg) was performed in patients with MS who had persistent muscle weakness that had been stable for between 4 and 18 months to determine whether this would improve muscle strength (primary outcome: isometric muscle strength). Patients received either IVIg (0.4 g/kg) or placebo daily for 5 days, then single infusions every 2 weeks for 3 months (total, 11 infusions). Muscle groups identified by clinical measures to have unchanging significant weakness were the major targets for therapeutic response (targeted neurologic deficit [TND]). RESULTS: IVIg was well tolerated. An interim analysis after 67 patients were enrolled indicated no difference in the degree of change in strength between treatment groups in either the TND or non-TND muscle groups at 6 months, and the trial was terminated. There was no apparent benefit in relapse behavior or impairment measures during the 6-month observation period. Nor was there apparent benefit in either patients who remained clinically stable or in those with evidence of disease activity. Patients with active MS during the trial worsened in both TND and non-TND muscle groups. This worsening was seen regardless of whether the clinical manifestations of disease activity involved the TND muscle groups. CONCLUSIONS: IVIg does not reverse established weakness in MS. Measurements of isometric muscle strength were reliable (reproducible) indices of strength and may be sensitive, objective methods to document functional changes in impairment in future MS trials.