Towards Building a Bridge between Community Engagement in Research (CEnR) and Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER).

A major national priority is establishing an effective infrastructure for translation of scientific discoveries into the community. Knowledge and practice continue to accelerate in health research yet healthcare recommendation adoption remains slow for practitioners, patients, and communities. Two areas of research placed in the later stages of the translational research spectrum, Community Engagement in Research and Comparative Effectiveness Research, are ideal for approaching this challenge collaboratively. The Clinical and Translational Science Institute of Southeastern Wisconsin convened academics and community-based organizations familiar with these fields of research in a 1-day workshop to establish an initial dialogue on similarities and differences with a goal of exploring ways to operationalize a collective effort. Participants represented four academic institutions and twelve other healthcare and community-based service organizations. Primary fields of study included community engaged research, comparative effectiveness research, psychology, clinical research, administration, nursing, public health, education, and other professionals. This initial report outlines the results of this diverse discussion and provides insights into the priorities, diverging issues, and areas for future examination and practice. Key discoveries reveal clear crosscutting issues, value in philosophical and provocative discussions among investigators, a need for practice and lessons learned, and bidirectional exchange with community representation.

Public health accreditation and metrics for ethics: a case study on environmental health and community engagement.

As public health departments around the country undergo accreditation using the Public Health Accreditation Board standards, the process provides a new opportunity to integrate ethics metrics into day-to-day public health practice. While the accreditation standards do not explicitly address ethics, ethical tools and considerations can enrich the accreditation process by helping health departments and their communities understand what ethical principles underlie the accreditation standards and how to use metrics based on these ethical principles to support decision making in public health practice. We provide a crosswalk between a public health essential service, Public Health Accreditation Board community engagement domain standards, and the relevant ethical principles in the Public Health Code of Ethics (Code). A case study illustrates how the accreditation standards and the ethical principles in the Code together can enhance the practice of engaging the community in decision making in the local health department.

A model to translate evidence-based interventions into community practice.

There is a tension between 2 alternative approaches to implementing community-based interventions. The evidence-based public health movement emphasizes the scientific basis of prevention by disseminating rigorously evaluated interventions from academic and governmental agencies to local communities. Models used by local health departments to incorporate community input into their planning, such as the community health improvement process (CHIP), emphasize community leadership in identifying health problems and developing and implementing health improvement strategies. Each approach has limitations. Modifying CHIP to formally include consideration of evidence-based interventions in both the planning and evaluation phases leads to an evidence-driven community health improvement process that can serve as a useful framework for uniting the different approaches while emphasizing community ownership, priorities, and wisdom.