Researcher readiness for participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation research: a conceptual framework of core competencies.

Participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation (CEDI) research is challenging for a variety of reasons. Currently, there is not specific guidance or a tool available for researchers to assess their readiness to conduct CEDI research. We propose a conceptual framework that identifies detailed competencies for researchers participating in CEDI and maps these competencies to domains. The framework is a necessary step toward developing a CEDI research readiness survey that measures a researcher's attitudes, willingness, and self-reported ability for acquiring the knowledge and performing the behaviors necessary for effective community engagement. The conceptual framework for CEDI competencies was developed by a team of eight faculty and staff affiliated with a university's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The authors developed CEDI competencies by identifying the attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors necessary for carrying out commonly accepted CE principles. After collectively developing an initial list of competencies, team members individually mapped each competency to a single domain that provided the best fit. Following the individual mapping, the group held two sessions in which the sorting preferences were shared and discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached. During this discussion, modifications to wording of competencies and domains were made as needed. The team then engaged five community stakeholders to review and modify the competencies and domains. The CEDI framework consists of 40 competencies organized into nine domains: perceived value of CE in D&I research, introspection and openness, knowledge of community characteristics, appreciation for stakeholder's experience with and attitudes toward research, preparing the partnership for collaborative decision-making, collaborative planning for the research design and goals, communication effectiveness, equitable distribution of resources and credit, and sustaining the partnership. Delineation of CEDI competencies advances the broader CE principles and D&I research goals found in the literature and facilitates development of readiness assessments tied to specific training resources for researchers interested in conducting CEDI research.

Bridging Research, Practice, and Policy: The "Evidence Academy" Conference Model.

Innovative models to facilitate more rapid uptake of research findings into practice are urgently needed. Community members who engage in research can accelerate this process by acting as adoption agents. We implemented an Evidence Academy conference model bringing together researchers, health care professionals, advocates, and policy makers across North Carolina to discuss high-impact, life-saving study results. The overall goal is to develop dissemination and implementation strategies for translating evidence into practice and policy. Each 1-day, single-theme, regional meeting focuses on a leading community-identified health priority. The model capitalizes on the power of diverse local networks to encourage broad, common awareness of new research findings. Furthermore, it emphasizes critical reflection and active group discussion on how to incorporate new evidence within and across organizations, health care systems, and communities. During the concluding session, participants are asked to articulate action plans relevant to their individual interests, work setting, or area of expertise.

Applying Cognitive Interviewing to Inform Measurement of Partnership Readiness: A New Approach to Strengthening Community-Academic Research.

BACKGROUND: Partnerships between academic and community-based organizations (CBOs) can richly inform the research process and speed translation of findings. Although immense potential exists to co-conduct research, a better understanding of how to create and sustain equitable relationships between entities with different organizational goals, structures, resources, and expectations is needed. OBJECTIVE: We sought to engage community leaders in the development of an instrument to assess CBOs' interest and capacity to engage with academia in translational research partnerships. METHODS: Leaders from CBOs partnered with our research team in the design of a 50-item instrument to assess organizational experience with applying for federal funding and conducting research studies. Respondents completed a self-administered, paper/pencil survey and a follow-up structured cognitive interview (n = 11). A community advisory board (CAB; n = 8) provided further feedback on the survey through guided discussion. Thematic analysis of the cognitive interviews and a summary of the CAB discussion informed survey revisions. RESULTS: Cognitive interviews and discussion with community leaders identified language and measurement issues for revision. Importantly, they also revealed an unconscious bias on the part of researchers and offered an opportunity, at an early research stage, to address imbalances in the survey perspective and to develop a more collaborative, equitable approach. CONCLUSIONS: Engaging community leaders enhanced face and content validity and served as a means to form relationships with potential community co-investigators in the future. Cognitive interviewing can enable a bidirectional approach to partnerships, starting with instrument development.

Data Collection and Management in Community Engaged Research: Lessons Learned From Two Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships.

BACKGROUND: Data collection and data management (DCDM) within community-engaged research (CEnR) requires special considerations that differ from those of traditional research. To date, little guidance exists to preemptively help community-academic partnerships anticipate and resolve DCDM issues that may arise. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide recommendations for DCDM based on two CEnR research projects. METHODS: We used a case study design to describe the DCDM process and lessons learned that were generated through formal and informal discussions between community and academic partners. LESSONS LEARNED: We identified 4 key lessons: 1) CEnR requires a flexible, iterative approach to DCDM, 2) there are trade-offs to having a flexible DCDM approach, 3) responsibilities for DCDM should consider the skill sets and priorities of all partners, and 4) nuances of DC within CEnR has important implications for human subjects and ethics training. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our lessons learned, we provide recommendations for how to approach DCDM within CEnR.