Community representatives' involvement in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee activities.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the formal roles of community representatives (CRs) in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee (CTSA) activities, to evaluate the extent of integration into the organizational and governance structures and to identify barriers to effective integration. METHODS: The inventory tool was distributed to each of the 60 CTSAs using a secure web application. RESULTS: Forty-seven (78%) completed the inventory. The mean number of CRs per CTSA is 21.4 (SD: 14.8). Most CTSAs had community advisory boards (89%) and 94% included CRs in Community Engagement (CE) cores. Only 11% reported a CR being a member of the CTSA leadership team and 19% reported that CRs advise core programs beyond CE. CRs are compensated by 79% of CTSAs. Mean annual compensation is $753 (median: $400). Compensation directly correlated with the number of hours that CRs worked in CTSA activities (r = 0.64; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This inventory allows CTSAs to better understand how CRs have engaged in activities and brings attention to the limited representation among cores and in leadership roles. CTSAs should, with substantive input from CRs, develop strategies to provide the resources and compensation necessary to better integrate the community in CTSA activities and fully realize the goals of the CTSA vision.

A funding initiative for community-based participatory research: lessons from the Harvard Catalyst Seed Grants.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health-funded Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) have increasingly focused on community-engaged research and funded investigators for community-based participatory research (CBPR). However, because CBPR is a collaborative process focused on community-identified research topics, the Harvard CTSA and its Community Advisory Board (CERAB) funded community partners through a CBPR initiative. OBJECTIVES: We describe lessons learned from this seed grants initiative designed to stimulate community-academic CBPR partnerships. METHODS: The CBPR program of the Harvard CTSA and the CERAB developed this initiative and each round incorporated participant and advisory feedback toward program improvement. LESSONS LEARNED: Although this initiative facilitated relevant and innovative research, challenges included variable community research readiness, insufficient project time, and difficulties identifying investigators for new partnerships. CONCLUSION: Seed grants can foster innovative CBPR projects. Similar initiatives should consider preliminary assessments of community research readiness as well as strategies for meaningful academic researcher engagement.