Defining and Measuring Community Engagement and Community-Engaged Research: Clinical and Translational Science Institutional Practices.

BACKGROUND: The institutions that comprise the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) consortium and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences continue to explore and develop community-engaged research strategies and to study the role of community academic partnerships in advancing the science of community engagement. OBJECTIVES: To explore CTSA institutions in relation to an Institute of Medicine recommendation that community engagement occur in all stages of translational research and be defined and evaluated consistently. METHODS: A sequential multimethods study starting with an online pilot survey followed by survey respondents and site informant interviews. A revised survey was sent to the community engagement and evaluation leads at each CTSA institution, requesting a single institutional response about the definitions, indicators, and metrics of community engagement and community-engaged research. RESULTS: A plurality of CTSA institutions selected the definition of community engagement from the Principles of Community Engagement. Although claiming unique institutional priorities create barriers to developing shared metrics, responses indicate an overall lack of attention to the development and deployment of metrics to assess community engagement in and contributions to research. CONCLUSIONS: Although definitions of community engagement differ among CTSAs, there seem to be more similarities than differences in the indicators and measures tracked and reported on across all definitions, perhaps owing to commonalities among program infrastructures and goals. Metrics will likely need to be specific to translational research stages. The assessment of community engagement within translational science will require increased institutional commitment.

Science Cafés: Transforming citizens to scientific citizens-What influences participants' perceived change in health and scientific literacy?

INTRODUCTION: Science Cafés facilitated by the Clinical and Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin seek to increase health and scientific literacy through informal conversation between researchers and community members. The goal was to understand what factors have the greatest influence on attendees' perceived changes in health and science literacy levels (PCHSL) to increase impact. METHODS: Previous research established the evaluation used in the Science Cafés to measure PCHSL. In this study, comparisons were made between (1) 2 different approaches to Science Cafés (Genomics Science Cafés or Health Science Cafés) and (2) regression models to show which factors best predicted PCHSL. RESULTS: The approach of the Genomics Science Cafés series to Science Cafés showed a larger impact on PCHSL. Regression models suggest SES and education significantly contributes to PCHSL. CONCLUSIONS: Insights for program development to have greater impact on PCHSL were identified. Continuing to optimize dissemination of research findings to the public is essential for improving community health and well-being.

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.

Science cafés: engaging scientists and community through health and science dialogue.

Engagement of the community through informal dialogue with researchers and physicians around health and science topics is an important avenue to build understanding and affect health and science literacy. Science Cafés are one model for this casual interchange; however the impact of this approach remains under researched. The Community Engagement Key Function of the Clinical and Translational Science Institute of Southeast Wisconsin hosted a series of Science Cafés in which topics were collaboratively decided upon by input from the community. Topics ranged from Personalized Medicine to Alzheimer's and Dementia to BioMedical Innovation. A systematic evaluation of the impact of Science Cafés on attendees' self-confidence related to five health and scientific literacy concepts showed statistically significant increases across all items (Mean differences between mean retrospective pre-scores and post-scores, one tailed, paired samples t-test, n=141, p<.0001 for all items). The internal consistency of the five health and scientific literacy items was excellent (n=126, α=0.87). Thematic analysis of attendees' comments provides more nuance about positive experience and suggestions for possible improvements. The evaluation provides important evidence supporting the effectiveness of brief, casual dialogue as a way to increase the public's self-rated confidence in health and science topics.

Towards a unified taxonomy of health indicators: academic health centers and communities working together to improve population health.

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) program represents a significant public investment. To realize its major goal of improving the public's health and reducing health disparities, the CTSA Consortium's Community Engagement Key Function Committee has undertaken the challenge of developing a taxonomy of community health indicators. The objective is to initiate a unified approach for monitoring progress in improving population health outcomes. Such outcomes include, importantly, the interests and priorities of community stakeholders, plus the multiple, overlapping interests of universities and of the public health and health care professions involved in the development and use of local health care indicators.The emerging taxonomy of community health indicators that the authors propose supports alignment of CTSA activities and facilitates comparative effectiveness research across CTSAs, thereby improving the health of communities and reducing health disparities. The proposed taxonomy starts at the broadest level, determinants of health; subsequently moves to more finite categories of community health indicators; and, finally, addresses specific quantifiable measures. To illustrate the taxonomy's application, the authors have synthesized 21 health indicator projects from the literature and categorized them into international, national, or local/special jurisdictions. They furthered categorized the projects within the taxonomy by ranking indicators with the greatest representation among projects and by ranking the frequency of specific measures. They intend for the taxonomy to provide common metrics for measuring changes to population health and, thus, extend the utility of the CTSA Community Engagement Logic Model. The input of community partners will ultimately improve population health.