2021 Community Engagement Studio Virtual Training Summit: Increasing the Diversity of Stakeholders Engaged in Research.

BACKGROUND: There are few methods that focus on engaging racial and ethnic minorities in research. The Meharry-Vanderbilt Community Engaged Research Core partnered with the University of Utah, the University of Michigan, and community/patient partners to convene a virtual summit to share the Community Engagement Studio (CE Studio) model, a structured and widely-used approach that facilitates community engagement in research. OBJECTIVES: The CE Studio Virtual Training Summit (Summit) goal was to prepare multi-stakeholder (e.g., researchers, community members) research teams to engage more racial/ethnic minorities in CE studios. METHODS: Summit planning included (1) agenda development, including CE Studio training and a live CE Studio demonstration; (2) summit advertisement across several networks, including minority-serving institutions; and (3) development of pre-and post-Summit evaluations. RESULTS: Among 50 registrants (76.7% academicians) that completed evaluations, more than 65% planned to increase engagement of racial/ethnic minorities in research and implement CE Studios as a result of the Summit. Increased confidence in all CE training areas was reported, including in conducting an effective CE Studio planning meeting (32.1% pre-Summit/90.3% post-Summit) and identifying and preparing patient/community stakeholders for engagement as CE Studio experts (46.4% pre-Summit/93.6% post-Summit). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual CE Studio training that includes multi-stakeholder planning partners can be an effective method for introducing the CE Studio model and preparing multi-stakeholder research teams to engage racial and ethnic minorities in CE Studios. This is particularly salient given that effective community engaged research methods and best practices are not currently being distributed through research programs at a pace consistent with the demands.

Engagement of community stakeholders to develop a framework to guide research dissemination to communities.

BACKGROUND: Dissemination of research findings to past study participants and the community-at-large is important. Yet, a standardized process for research dissemination is needed to report results to the community. OBJECTIVE: We developed a framework and strategies to guide community-academic partnerships in community-targeted, dissemination efforts. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, a community-academic partnership was formed in Nashville, Tennessee, and iteratively developed a framework and strategies for research dissemination using cognitive interviews. A deductive, constant comparative analysis was conducted on interview responses to examine framework and strategy content. Feedback was used to finalize the framework and strategies for the evaluation. Using existing data, the framework's utility was evaluated in seven town hall meetings (n = 117). Bivariate analyses determined its effect on community members' trust and willingness to participate in research using pre- and post-surveys. Evaluation results were used to finalize the framework. RESULTS: The Community-Engaged Research Dissemination (CERD) framework has two phases. Phase one is a preliminary planning phase with two steps, and phase two is the four-step dissemination process. There are five standards to be upheld conducting these phases. We provide competencies for each component. Three feasible, culturally adapted strategies were developed as exemplars to disseminate research findings. Using pre- and post-surveys for intervention evaluation, there was a significant difference in trust in medical research and researchers (P = .006) and willingness to participate in research (P = .013). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The CERD framework can potentially standardize the process and compare the effect of dissemination efforts on the community's trust and willingness to participate in research.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Dual-Track Research Training Program for Community Members and Community-Based Organizations.

BACKGROUND: It is a public health priority to increase community research participation to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities. There is a need for effective research training programs that build community stakeholders' capacity to engage as equitable partners. OBJECTIVES: To describe the collaborative process of implementing and evaluating a dual-track community research training program-Meharry Vanderbilt Community Engaged Research Core-Community Research Training Program (MVC-CRT) Program-and present participant evaluations. METHODS: The MVC-CRT is a six-session community-based organization (CBO) curriculum and a three-session community member (CM) curriculum, based on needs identified by various community stakeholders, that was piloted in 2016. Immediately post-training, an outcome evaluation (surveys) was used to measure trainees' confidence relative to 30 learning objectives for the combined training sessions (e.g., Introduction to research), satisfaction in preparing them for research roles, and impact on research activities (e.g., building sustainable partnerships). 2 and 3 months after training, a process evaluation (focus groups) was used to assess each session's flow, materials, group discussions, and facilitators. RESULTS: Trainees' immediate post-training confidence increased or remained the same across 26 of 30 learning objectives. Two to 3 months after training, trainees reported sustained confidence, perceived increased knowledge, and increased intentions to engage in or improve research activities. All participants were satisfied with the program and felt better prepared for research roles. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored community research training may result in positive outcomes that can ultimately increase community capacity to be equitable partners in research in support of efforts to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities.

Patient Stories Can Make a Difference in Patient-Centered Research Design.

Amid increasing interest in improving the patient-centeredness of research, new forms of engagement are emerging that enable researchers to get input from community members on research goals, methods, and implementation. This input often includes stories, which are useful for understanding lived experiences of illness and encounters with health care organizations, and for locating these experiences within larger meta-narratives of specific communities. We analyzed the stories in transcripts of 13 Community Engagement Studios and identified 4 major functions that the stories served in the sessions. Major functions included: (1) establishing mutual understanding, (2) adding expansion and depth, (3) characterizing abstract concepts, and (4) providing context for experience, with the latter being the most frequent. We assert that stories can serve to better communicate the complex contexts of patient experiences, helping to align research priorities and research design with community interests, leading to more patient-centered innovations in clinical practice.

A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement.

BACKGROUND: Community engagement is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool in clinical and translational research; however, the impact of engagement is not fully understood. No standard nomenclature yet exists to clearly define how research changes when community stakeholders are engaged across the research spectrum. This severely limits our ability to assess the value of community engagement in research. To address this gap, we developed a taxonomy for characterizing and classifying changes in research due to community engagement. METHODS: Using an iterative process, we (a) identified areas of potential impact associated with community engagement from author experience, (b) categorized these in taxonomic bins based on research stages, (c) conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers and community stakeholders, (d) validated the codebook in a sample dataset and (e) refined the taxonomy based on the validation. Community stakeholders were involved in every step of the process including as members of the primary study team. RESULTS: The final taxonomy catalogues changes into eleven domains corresponding to research phases. Each domain includes 2-4 dimensions depicting concepts within the domain's scope and, within each dimension, 2-10 elements labelling activities through which community engagement could change research. CONCLUSIONS: Community engagement has great potential to enhance clinical and translational research. This taxonomy provides a common vocabulary and framework for understanding the impact of community engagement and suggests metrics for assessing the value of community engagement in research.

Development and validation of the Person-Centeredness of Research Scale.

AIM: Person-centeredness shifts the focus of healthcare and research to the needs and priorities of patients and communities, and may improve health outcomes. There are no instruments available, however, with which we can assess the degree to which research is indeed person-centered. Our aim was to develop and validate a quantitative instrument to rate person-centeredness of research. MATERIALS & METHODS: Scale development and validation entailed a multistep approach that led to the seven-item Person Centeredness of Research Scale (PCoR Scale) that uses a 5-point Likert rating scale. The scale was validated using ratings of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research abstracts or abstracts submitted to a translational science meeting. RESULTS: Psychometric properties of the PCoR Scale showed high internal consistency (α = 0.96). All seven items were highly correlated with the total score (rs range from 0.63 to 0.90). An exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that all of the items loaded on a single factor, explaining 80% of the variance. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research abstracts had a mean PCoR Scale score of 6.52 (±8.01) that was significantly higher than the abstracts submitted to the translational science meeting (-2.56 (±9.18); t = 8.09; p < 0.0001). Inter-rater reliability in the validation of the revised instrument was high (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC](group1) = 0.89; ICC(group2) = 0.95). CONCLUSION: This brief, quantitative rating scale is the first to assess the main constructs that describe person-centeredness of research products. The PCoR Scale can be used to assess person-centeredness in research products; for example, by funders evaluating proposals, data networks evaluating data requests or researchers evaluating their research designs.

Comprehensive strategy for capturing and integrating community input into community research training curricula.

INTRODUCTION: Community stakeholders often participate in community research training curricula development. There is limited information describing how their input informs curricula. This paper describes input solicitation methods, input received, and examples of its integration. METHODS: From June 2014 to June 2016, community members (CMs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) guided curricula development tailored for CMs and CBOs, respectively. Engagement methods included a strategic planning retreat, surveys, a listening session, workgroup meetings, and community engagement studios. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize survey input. For other methods, input was extracted and compiled from facilitator notes. RESULTS: CMs (n = 37) and CBOs (n = 83) providing input included patients and caregivers and advocacy, community service, and faith-based organizations, respectively. The major feedback categories were training topic priorities, format (e.g., face-to-face vs. online), logistics (e.g., training frequency), and compensation (e.g., appro-priateness). Input directly guided design of CBO and CM curricula (e.g., additional time devoted to specific topics based on feedback) or helped to finalize logistics. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple quantitative and qualitative methods can be used to elicit input from community stakeholders to inform the development of community research training curricula. This input is essential for the development of training curricula that are culturally relevant and acceptable.

Enhancing translational researchers' ability to collaborate with community stakeholders: Lessons from the Community Engagement Studio.

Community engagement is considered essential to effectively translate research into practice and is increasingly recognized as a key to successful clinical trial recruitment. Challenges to engaging community stakeholders in research persist and new methods are needed to facilitate meaningful stakeholder involvement. The Community Engagement Studio (CE Studio), a consultative model, has been used at every stage of the research process. Best practices drawn from the model could inform other methods of engagement. Using a mixed-methods approach that included evaluation surveys, impact surveys and interviews, we assessed the CE Studio program. We analyzed data from 75 CE Studios; 65 researchers and 591 community members completed surveys and 10 researchers completed interviews. Surveys indicate that 100% of researchers would request a CE Studio in the future, and 99.3% of community members would participate in a CE Studio again. We identified 6 practices to enhance community engagement in clinical and translational research: early input, researcher coaching, researcher humility, balancing power, neutral facilitator, and preparation of community stakeholders. These best practices may enhance the quality of existing community engagement approaches and improve the effectiveness of translational researchers' efforts to engage community stakeholders in their work.

Needs, Priorities, and Recommendations for Engaging Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Research: A Community Perspective.

Engaging underrepresented groups in outcomes research is a public health priority for reducing health and health care disparities; yet, engaging these groups is challenging. Failure to involve these underrepresented populations in research further exacerbates these disparities. This article presents the health and research priorities of diverse groups of underrepresented populations in biomedical research, their concerns for participating in research, and strategies to engage them in their healthcare and research studies. Eleven community listening sessions, ranging from 7 to 13 community members each (N = 117), representing racial/ethnic minority, economically disadvantaged (e.g., uninsured), and hearing impaired communities. We used an inductive, qualitative content analysis approach to analyze the data for emerging themes. We identified the following themes: Uncertainties of underrepresented populations regarding research participation; Ineffective communication about research opportunities and research findings; Research on primary care and prevention are priorities for underrepresented populations in research; and Research teams need training in cultural competence and humility. Underrepresented groups provided research priorities, concerns, and strategies to engage them in their healthcare and in research studies. Findings from this study could facilitate improvement of research participation among underrepresented groups, ultimately reducing health disparities and improving quality of life among groups commonly omitted from research recruitment and participation.

Community-Engaged Strategies to Promote Relevance of Research Capacity-Building Efforts Targeting Community Organizations.

OBJECTIVE: The study goal is to highlight strategies for promoting relevance of research capacity-building efforts targeting community organizations (CO)s. METHODS: Two community partners, representing two COs, were invited to participate in CO research development trainings, Community Research Forums (Forum)s. Their contributions were documented via Forum document review. Forum participants, representatives from other COs, completed post-Forum surveys to identify additional training needs and rate Forum impact relative to their training expectations. A content-based analysis and descriptive statistics were used to summarize needs assessment- and impact-related survey responses, respectively. RESULTS: Community partners were involved in eight Forum-related activities including marketing (planning), facilitation (implementation), and manuscript coauthorship (dissemination). Eighty-one individuals, representing 55 COs, attended the Forums. Needs assessment responses revealed a desire for additional assistance with existing Forum topics (e.g., defining research priorities) and a need for new ones (e.g., promoting organizational buy in for research). Ninety-one percent of participants agreed that the Forum demonstrated the value of research to COs and how to create a research agenda. CONCLUSIONS: Including community partners in all Forum phases ensured that CO perspectives were integrated throughout. Post-Forum needs and impact assessment results will help in tailoring, where needed, future training topics and strategies, respectively.