Search

Collaboration between academic researchers and community members, clinicians, and organizations is valued at all levels of the program development process in community-engaged health research (CEnR). This descriptive study examined a convenience sample of 30 projects addressing training in CEnR methods and strategies within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. Projects were selected from among posters presented at an annual community engagement conference over a 3-year period. Study goals were to learn more about how community participation in the design process affected selection of training topics, how distinct community settings influenced the selection of training formats, and the role of evaluation in preparing training participants to pursue future health research programming. Results indicated (1) a modest increase in training topics that reflected community health priorities as a result of community (as well as academic) participation at the program design stage, (2) a wide range of community-based settings for CEnR training programs, and (3) the majority of respondents conducted evaluations, which led in turn to revisions in the curricula for future training sessions. Practice and research implications are that the collaboration displayed by academic community teams around CEnR training should be traced to see if this participatory practice transfers to the design of health promotion programs. Second, collaborative training design tenets, community formats and settings, and evaluation strategies should be disseminated throughout the CTSA network and beyond. Third, common evaluative metrics and indicators of success for CEnR training programs should be identified across CTSA institutions.

IntroductionClinical and Translational Science Award Program (CTSA)-funded institutions were charged with developing clinical and translational science programs and transforming clinical research at their institutions. Community engagement (CE) was recognized as a key component and catalyst of that transformation. CE hub capacities for working with communities and translating knowledge into practice have been illustrated through their COVID-19 responses.MethodsCE hub leaders met and discussed their CTSA's early responses regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2-hour discussion was distilled into themes which were sent to the CE hub leaders with a request for written accounts describing actions taken to engage local partners, communities, and institutions. The written reports form the basis for this compendium.ResultsEighteen institutions submitted written reports describing activities in relation to six themes: (1) listen to the community and respond to concerns, (2) collect data to understand the impact of COVID-19 on distinct communities and groups, (3) communicate science and address misinformation, (4) collaborate with health departments, (5) engage hubs and underrepresented populations in COVID-19 research, and (6) support our own well-being and that of others.ConclusionsBidirectional interactions comprise the foundation of CE, which requires trusted partnerships that sustain communication through a series of activities and goals. The nimble responses to the pandemic substantiate the need for CE programs to maintain the infrastructure necessary to achieve the primary CTSA goals of improving health within and across communities and localities as well as expanding research participation of community members.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships exist as complex, dynamic relationships that incorporate shared decision that supports trust development between communities and academics. Within CBPR, the interest in understanding the concept of trust has grown with the realization that, without trust, CBPR relationships fracture. A barrier to monitoring the trust health of a partnership is the lack of a shared operationalization of the concept, its antecedents, and measurement tools. To address these barriers, a six-category trust typology was created as a developmental theory of trust progress. To advance the theory, this article reports on the quantitative structural elements of the trust typology, identifies variability in trust correlates, and creates an empirical foundation for the trust types. Using Engage for Equity data, trust covariates included measures of synergy, CBPR principles, participation, and influence. Structural equation models were used to assess associations between trust types and the latent constructs measured by the items in each measure. The findings demonstrate that the six trust types generally operate on a continuum. Specifically, it does appear that trust deficit, role-based trust, functional trust, proxy trust, and reflective trust are on a single continuum from low to high. Scale scores for reflective trust and proxy trust were consistently and statistically significantly higher than those for functional trust, role-based, neutral, and trust deficit. These results support the construct validity of the trust typology as representing "higher levels" of trust phases. Due to the dynamic nature of partnerships, regular monitoring of partnership trust types can serve as a proxy for partnership functioning.

The article discusses the lack of sustained engagement between research institutions, public health systems, and communities, which hinders efforts to address health inequities. It highlights the racial and social inequities exposed by the COVID-19 pandemic and systemic racism, as well as the need for community engagement to raise awareness and address the needs of marginalized populations. The article emphasizes the importance of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and community engagement in improving research rigor and health outcomes. It also calls for institutional changes to support community engagement, address historical research ethics violations, and promote diversity in research teams. The article concludes by advocating for a science of community engagement that involves dialogue, action, and system change to achieve health justice. [Extracted from the article]

Explorations of workflow development within primary care allow us to understand initial steps in the pace of knowledge and practice acclimatization within clinics. This study describes use of practice facilitation as an implementation strategy to communicate shared project goals and monitor and support refinement of practice behavior. This study engaged eight health care organizations, including 55 primary care practices, ≈380 clinicians, and ≈620 nursing and support staff in a guideline implementation project regarding United States Preventive Services Task Force use of aspirin recommendations for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The CTSA Community Engagement Consultative Service (CECS) is a national partnership designed to improve community engaged research (CEnR) through expert consultation. This report assesses the feasibility of CECS and presents findings from 2008 to 2009. Methodology A coordinating center and five regional coordinating sites managed the service. CTSAs identified a primary previsit CE best practice for consultants to address and completed self-assessments, postvisit evaluations, and action plans. Feasibility was assessed as the percent of CTSAs participating and completing evaluations. Frequencies were calculated for evaluation responses. Results Of the 38 CTSAs, 36 (95%) completed a self-assessment. Of these 36 sites, 83%, 53%, and 44% completed a consultant visit, evaluation, and action plan, respectively, and 56% of the consultants completed an evaluation. The most common best practice identified previsit was improvement in CEnR (addressing outcomes that matter); however, relationship building with communities was most commonly addressed during consulting visits. Although 90% of the consultants were very confident sites could develop an action plan, only 35% were very confident in the CTSAs' abilities to implement one. Conclusions Academic medical centers interested in collaborating with communities and translating research to improve health need to further develop their capacity for CE and CEnR within their institutions. Clin Trans Sci 2013; Volume 6: 34-39 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The CTSA Community Engagement Consultative Service (CECS) is a national partnership designed to improve community engaged research (CEnR) through expert consultation. This report assesses the feasibility of CECS and presents findings from 2008 to 2009., Methodology: A coordinating center and five regional coordinating sites managed the service. CTSAs identified a primary previsit CE best practice for consultants to address and completed self-assessments, postvisit evaluations, and action plans. Feasibility was assessed as the percent of CTSAs participating and completing evaluations. Frequencies were calculated for evaluation responses., Results: Of the 38 CTSAs, 36 (95%) completed a self-assessment. Of these 36 sites, 83%, 53%, and 44% completed a consultant visit, evaluation, and action plan, respectively, and 56% of the consultants completed an evaluation. The most common best practice identified previsit was improvement in CEnR (addressing outcomes that matter); however, relationship building with communities was most commonly addressed during consulting visits. Although 90% of the consultants were very confident sites could develop an action plan, only 35% were very confident in the CTSAs' abilities to implement one., Conclusions: Academic medical centers interested in collaborating with communities and translating research to improve health need to further develop their capacity for CE and CEnR within their institutions., (© 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background and Objectives: National experts have defined the elements of quality health care, but community-based physicians have not been systematically asked their opinions about quality. This study explored primary care clinicians' beliefs about the elements of quality care., Methods: Responses from structured interviews with 12 primary care clinicians and open-ended comments in a subsequent survey of 85 clinicians, all employed by a large urban federally qualified community health center, were coded independently by two researchers and analyzed for major themes. After discovering that these themes resembled the six elements advanced by the Institute of Medicine, the data were recoded to identify additional perceptions about quality., Results: Clinicians believe that the relationship with patients is a core element of quality health care. They also reconfirm the elements of quality advanced by the Institute of Medicine--safety, timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and patient centeredness, with safety mentioned infrequently. The clinicians also emphasized preventive care., Conclusions: While primary care clinicians' beliefs about quality are generally consistent with experts' definitions, they emphasize relationships and rarely mention safety. Successful efforts to promote quality in primary care should be consistent with clinicians' beliefs about what constitutes high quality.