EVALUATING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN RESEARCH: QUANTITATIVE MEASURE DEVELOPMENT

Development of a self-management mobile app for bereaved adolescents: evaluating patient and public involvement

Background: Losing a family member during childhood is a potentially traumatic event and increases the risk of mental health difficulties. Adolescents have the right to express their views in research of relevance to them, but few studies have involved bereaved adolescents as collaborators (i.e. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI)). Furthermore, to ensure meaningful and non-tokenistic involvement, bereaved adolescents' levels of participation and experiences of taking part in research need to be evaluated.Objectives: The aim was to describe and evaluate a PPI process working with bereaved adolescents to develop a self-management mobile app for adolescents in grief.Methods: The PPI process consisted of four workshops during which the app's logo, colours, name, content, and layout were discussed with six parentally bereaved adolescents aged 13-18 years. The adolescents were recruited through a non-profit organisation providing support for adolescents in grief. The PPI process was documented and evaluated using participant observations and an online survey completed by the adolescents, covering the themes of social context, participation, and influence.Results: The adolescents perceived the social context as comfortable and inclusive, where their knowledge was valued. Their participation was characterised by ownership and motivated by a desire to help others with similar experiences. The adolescents' ability to participate in PPI activities was assisted by the researchers' flexibility, although challenging assignments may have made participation harder. Throughout PPI activities, adolescents contributed with relevant input and reported feeling influential. The study reached the intended levels of participation and appeared to adequately fulfil the adolescents' right to participation.Conclusions: Engaging adolescents who have undergone a potentially traumatic event, such as the loss of a family member, in research can enhance the overall relevance of the study. Moreover, it can entail a meaningful and positive experience for the participating adolescents, while also fulfilling their fundamental right to participation.

Application of a Heuristic Framework for Multilevel Interventions to Eliminate the Impact of Unjust Social Processes and Other Harmful Social Determinants of Health

There is consensus about the importance of developing a strong cadre of effective multilevel interventions to eliminate the impacts of unjust social processes, such as structural racism and other harmful social determinants of health (SDOH), on health inequities in the USA. However, the available cadre of rigorously evaluated evidence-based interventions for SDOH mitigation remains underdeveloped relative to the magnitude of historic and current health inequities. The proposed manuscript addresses this gap in two ways: first, by introducing a heuristic framework to inform decisions in multilevel intervention development, study design, and selection of analytic methods and, second, by providing a roadmap for future applications of the framework in multilevel intervention research through an exemplar application using the ongoing NIH-funded evaluation study of the Nurse-Community-Family Partnership (NCFP) intervention. NCFP leverages individual, family, institutional, and system factors to shape COVID-19 mitigation outcomes at the individual and household levels. NCFP takes an approach informed by the heuristic framework to addressing and mitigating unjust social processes and other harmful SDOH. We discuss the application of a two-arm parallel explanatory group randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of NCFP in improving the primary (COVID-19 testing uptake) and secondary (adoption of COVID-19 control measures, COVID-19 vaccine uptake, mutual aid capacity, etc.) outcomes at the individual and household levels. The analysis approach relies on random-intercept models, and we calculate the variance partitioning coefficient to estimate the extent to which household- and individual-level variables contribute to the outcome, allowing examination of NCFP effects at multiple levels.

Using Participatory Implementation Science to Advance Health Equity

Participatory approaches to implementation science (IS) offer an inclusive, collaborative, and iterative perspective on implementing and sustaining evidence-based interventions (EBIs) to advance health equity. This review provides guidance on the principles and practice of participatory IS, which enables academic researchers, community members, implementers, and other actors to collaboratively integrate practice-, community-, and research-based evidence into public health and health care services. With a foundational focus on supporting academics in coproducing knowledge and action, participatory IS seeks to improve health, reduce inequity, and create transformational change. The three main sections of this review provide (a) a rationale for participatory approaches to research in implementation science, (b) a framework for integrating participatory approaches in research utilizing IS theory and methods, and (c) critical considerations for optimizing the practice and impact of participatory IS. Ultimately, participatory approaches can move IS activities beyond efforts to make EBIs work within harmful systems toward transformative solutions that reshape these systems to center equity.

Health equity in action: using community-engaged research to update an intervention promoting a healthy home food environment to Black/African American families

PURPOSE

Describe the method for conducting community-engaged research to identify needed changes for an existing evidence-based intervention, and prepare it for implementation in a community setting within the Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center catchment area in an effort to achieve more equitable outcomes in diet-related disease risk factors.

METHODS

The intervention, Family Eats, was developed over 10 years ago. It works directly with parents of Black/African American 9-12 year old children to create a healthy home food environment to support prevention of obesity and related cancers. Data collection with community stakeholders occurred through a series of  Community Advisory Board (CAB) meetings guided by the Delphi Technique, an iterative approach for gaining group consensus on a topic.

RESULTS

Key information on needed changes and potential implementation strategies were identified. Perceived level of engagement among CAB members was high overall and in terms of both quantity and quality.

CONCLUSION

The Delphi Technique shows promise as a method for conducting community-engaged research that promotes engagement and identifies key information needed to adapt and implement an existing intervention in a community setting.

Synthesizing Best Practices to Promote Health Equity for Older Adults Through Community-Engaged Research

Achieving health equity requires creating evidence that reflects the nuance and diversity of experiences among populations disproportionately impacted by age- and race-related disparities. Community-engaged research (CEnR) is one way to pursue equity in research on health and aging to ensure the relevance and translational potential of findings. The current review synthesizes best practices regarding CEnR that promote health equity among older adults, including an overview of CEnR, benefits, and fundamental principles, and three research exemplars from the authors' CEnR. Finally, we discuss these best practices and considerations for advancing CEnR to reduce health disparities experienced by historically underserved older adults and their families. [Research in Gerontological Nursing, 17(1), 9-16.].

Effectiveness of Community-Engaged Research Strategies in Increasing COVID-19 Vaccinations in Targeted Communities: The Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) Regional Teams

Objectives. To explore a key outcome of interest for the Community Engagement Alliance (CEAL) Regional Teams by examining COVID-19 vaccinations over time in US counties where CEAL teams operated and comparing them to demographically similar counties in the same state. Methods. Our evaluation used a nonequivalent control group design. Each county where a CEAL team operated was matched to a unique non-CEAL county in the same state. Components of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index were used as the matching criteria. COVID-19 vaccinations (county-level percentage of residents aged 18 years or older who are fully vaccinated) for CEAL and matched counties were analyzed over time. Results. The mean percentage of vaccinated adults was significantly higher in CEAL counties than in matched non-CEAL counties. Sensitivity analyses confirmed conclusions did not change depending on the CEAL cohort or closeness of matches. Conclusions. Our findings support CEAL team efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccinations in target communities and employ community-engaged research more broadly within public health contexts. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S1):S124-S127. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307517).

A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts

BACKGROUND

Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study.

OBJECTIVE

To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research.

CONCLUSION

This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners' needs.

Community Engagement in Research: An Updated Systematic Review of Quantitative Engagement Measurement Scales for Health Studies

Though the interest in community engagement in research (CEnR) protocols has increased, studies reporting on the findings of tested CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies are sparse. A systematic review was conducted from January 1 to March 1, 2023, to identify validated, quantitative CEnR engagement measurement tools for health studies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology was employed. The rigor of scale development, testing, and implementation was explored, and a `best practices evaluation conducted. Themes on the readiness of scales for implementation in health research studies were narratively compiled. Nineteen studies met the search inclusion criteria-reporting on the development, testing, and implementation of seven CEnR engagement measurement scales for health studies. Scale implementation studies precipitated only two of the studies. None of the scales followed the rigorous process dictated in best practices; however, at this time, three scales have gone through the most robust testing processes. Advancement of the science of engagement measurement requires consensus on terminology, application of best practices for scale development and testing protocols, and consistency of reporting findings.

A practical method for integrating community priorities in planning and implementing cancer control programs

PURPOSE

Community engagement is essential in effective public health programs. This paper illustrates the methods used to engage community in the development of a multi-level implementation intervention to address cancer disparities related to hereditary cancer syndromes.

METHODS

Implementation Mapping (IM), was used to guide the co-creation of an intervention. Key partners were recruited to a 13-member statewide community advisory board (CAB) representing healthcare and community-based organizations. As part of a needs assessment, a 3-round modified Delphi method with the CAB was used to identify implementation outcomes to use in later steps of IM. An anonymous online survey of a validated community engagement measure assessed CAB members' satisfaction with the process.

RESULTS

Using a modified Delphi method as part of the needs assessment of IM, the CAB identified three broad categories of strategies: Changing infrastructure using patient navigation; training and educating patients, navigators and providers; and supporting clinicians in case identification and management. Self-reported satisfaction with the IM and Delphi process was high.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation Mapping facilitated the use of available evidence, new data, and community engagement to identify strategies to improve the delivery of programs to reduce hereditary cancer disparities. The modified Delphi method was easy to administer in a virtual environment and may be a useful for others in community-engaged research.

Strategies for Improving Enrollment of Diverse Populations with a Focus on Lipid-Lowering Clinical Trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We review under-representation of key demographic groups in cardiovascular clinical trials, focusing on lipid-lowering trials. We outline multilevel strategies to recruit and retain diverse populations in cardiovascular trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

Barriers to participation in trials occur at the study, participant, health system, sponsor, and policy level, requiring a multilevel approach to effectively increase participation of under-represented groups in research. Increasing the representation of marginalized and under-represented groups in leadership positions in clinical trials can ensure that their perspectives and experiences are considered. Trial design should prioritize patient- and community-indicated needs. Women and individuals from racially/ethnically diverse populations remain under-represented in lipid-lowering and other cardiovascular clinical trials relative to their disease burden in the population. This limits the generalizability of trial results to the broader population in clinical practice. Collaboration between community stakeholders, researchers, and community members can facilitate shared learning about trials and build trust.

Use of Community-Engaged Research Approaches in Clinical Interventions for Neurologic Disorders in the United States: A Scoping Review and Future Directions for Improving Health Equity Research

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Evidence suggests a significant prevalence of race and ethnic disparities in the United States among people with neurologic conditions including stroke, Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD), Parkinson disease (PD), epilepsy, spinal cord injury (SCI), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Recent neurologic research has begun the paradigm shift from observational health disparities research to intervention research in an effort to narrow the disparities gap. There is an evidence base that suggests that community engagement is a necessary component of health equity. While the increase in disparities focused neurologic interventions is encouraging, it remains unclear whether and how community-engaged practices are integrated into intervention design and implementation. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize intervention studies that have actively engaged with the community in the design and implementation of interventions to reduce disparities in neurologic conditions and to describe the common community engagement processes used.

METHODS

Two databases, PubMed and CINAHL, were searched to identify eligible empirical studies within the United States whose focus was on neurologic interventions addressing disparities and using community engagement practices.

RESULTS

We identified 392 disparity-focused interventions in stroke, ADRD, PD, epilepsy, SCI, and TBI, of which 53 studies incorporated community engagement practices: 32 stroke studies, 15 ADRD, 2 epilepsy studies, 2 PD studies, 1 SCI study, and 1 TBI study. Most of the interventions were designed as randomized controlled trials and were programmatic in nature. The interventions used a variety of community engagement practices: community partners (42%), culturally tailored materials and mobile health (40%), community health workers (32%), faith-based organizations and local businesses (28%), focus groups/health need assessments (25%), community advisory boards (19%), personnel recruited from the community/champions (19%), and caregiver/social support (15%).

DISCUSSION

Our scoping review reports that the proportion of neurologic intervention studies incorporating community engagement practices is limited and that the practices used within those studies are varied. The major practices used included collaboration with community partners and utilization of culturally tailored materials. We also found inconsistent reporting and dissemination of results from studies that implemented community engagement measures in their interventions. Future directions include involving the community in research early and continuously, building curricula that address challenges to community engagement, prioritizing the inclusion of community engagement reporting in peer-reviewed journals, and prioritizing and incentivizing research of subpopulations that experience disparities in neurologic conditions.

Promoting Authentic Academic-Community Engagement to Advance Health Equity

Meaningful community engagement is critical to achieving the lofty goal of health equity. Nonetheless, implementing the principles of community engagement is not easy. Attempting to implement best practices for collaborating on transdisciplinary teams and working with community partners can be challenging, particularly in locales that have a long history of strained university-community relationships. The purpose of this paper is to provide additional context and consideration for researchers, community partners, and institutions interested in conducting community-engaged research. Here, we provide guidance and highlight exemplary programs that offer effective approaches to enhance the strength of community partnerships. These partnerships not only hold promise but are also essential in the development of the local, multi-factor solutions required to address racial/ethnic inequities in health.

Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist.

RESULTS

From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932.

Adapting a Research and Community Capacity-Building Program to Address Rural Cancer Burden and Facilitate Partnership Development Between Rural Community Stakeholders and an Urban Comprehensive Cancer Center

While rural-urban cancer disparities persist, the research building capacity between rural communities and high-quality cancer centers remains limited. Thus, we describe how a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center partnered with rural community stakeholders to adapt a cancer prevention-focused research and community capacity-building workshop. The workshop's goal was to strengthen community-academic partnerships and facilitate the development of sustainable well-resourced rural cancer-focused research. Researchers from the Siteman Cancer Center partnered with community leaders from rural counties in southern Illinois. We adapted the workshop from an existing evidence-based program. We analyzed changes in knowledge and research capacity and relevance to their community work. From February to May 2019, community partners guided all elements of the workshop development. Workshop participants were mostly White race (93%), had a college degree or beyond (75%), reported living in a rural community (93%), and represented an academic, faith-based, or healthcare institution (78%). Participants' mean knowledge scores of the presented content increased significantly after each session, from 9.3 to 9.9 for session 1 (p = 0.05) and 6.8 to 9.7 (p < 0.001) for session two. Through the workshop, participant scores also increased in research capacity skills, confidence, and their understanding of conducting research in the community. The workshop, co-curated and led by rural community leaders and researchers from Siteman Cancer Center, successfully increased knowledge of and interest in building cancer research capacity. Lessons from our work can inform the implementation of similar programs that address rural cancer health through research and community capacity building between rural community partners and urban cancer centers.

How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks

BACKGROUND

Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics.

METHODS

Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction-validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD).

RESULTS

Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%).

CONCLUSION

This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932 .

Rapid Community Engagement in Response to SARS-CoV-2 Funding Opportunities: New York City, 2020‒2021

In response to fast-turnaround funding opportunities, collaborations have been forming across the country to address severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disparities. Here we describe the process, notes from the field, and evaluation results from a new collaboration involving multiple partners, formed in October 2020 in New York City as part of the Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics initiative. We used the validated Research Engagement Survey Tool to evaluate the partnership. Results can inform future research and improve engagement efforts aimed at reducing SARS-CoV-2 disparities. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S9):S904-S908. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307072).

Promoting community stakeholder engagement in research on treatment for pregnant women with opioid use disorder

Aim: Community stakeholder engagement in research (CSER) can improve research relevance and efficiency as well as prevent harmful practices, particularly for vulnerable populations. Despite potential benefits, researchers lack familiarity with CSER methods. Methods: We describe CSER strategies used across the research continuum, including proposal development, study planning and the first years of a comparative effectiveness study of care for pregnant women with opioid use disorder. Results: We highlight successful strategies, grounded in principles of engagement, to establish and maintain stakeholder relationships, foster bidirectional communication and trust and support active participation of women with opioid use disorder in the research process. Conclusion: CSER methods support research with a disenfranchised population. Future work will evaluate the impact of CSER strategies on study outcomes and dissemination.

Methodologies to Advance a "Science of How": Identifying and Engaging Intervention Targets and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Although implementation science has taken hold in many areas of psychiatric services research, a need remains for developing effective, low-cost interventions for specific subpopulations with mental health conditions. The experimental therapeutics approach has gained momentum as a framework for developing effective interventions. However, few studies have taken steps to rigorously apply experimental therapeutics. This article provides a blueprint for applying this approach.

METHODS

A focused literature review was conducted to document the frequency of the application of experimental therapeutics among articles published between 2011 and 2021 in some of the American Psychiatric Association's journals. Independently of the review, the authors delineated a four-component approach for applying experimental therapeutics in research and present practical, innovative strategies to advance psychiatric services research.

RESULTS

The four-component approach includes outlining prerequisites, identifying target mechanisms, proposing intervention strategies to address target mechanisms, and using advanced analytic methods. The strategies described for each component are not exhaustive; rather, they suggest promising avenues for research that can lead to more effective interventions and deeper understanding of how, and for whom, an intervention works.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of experimental therapeutics in psychiatric services research can lead to increased development, refinement, and implementation of effective interventions for specific populations or conditions.

Community engagement in kidney research: Guatemalan experience

Background

Community engagement is essential for effective research when addressing issues important to both the community and researchers. Despite its effectiveness, there is limited published evidence concerning the evaluation of community engagement in research projects, especially in the area of nephrology.

Methods

We developed a community engagement program in Guatemala to address the role of hydration in chronic kidney disease of unknown origin, using five key engagement principles: 1. Local relevance and determinants of health. 2. Acknowledgment of the community. 3. Dissemination of findings and knowledge gained to all partners. 4. Usage of community partners’ input. 5. Involvement of a cyclical and iterative process in the pursuit of goals. The effectiveness of community engagement was measured by a structured questionnaire on a 5-point likert scale. This measure determined how well and how often the research team adhered to the five engagement principles. We assessed internal consistency for each set of the engagement items through Omega coefficient.

Results

Sixty-two community leaders completed the questionnaire. Seventy-five percent were female, with a mean age of 37 years. All 5 engagement principles scored highly on the 5-point likert scale. Every item set corresponding to an engagement principles evaluation had a Omega coefficient > 0.80, indicating a firm internal consistency for all question groups on both qualitative and quantitative scales.

Conclusion

Engagement of the community in the kidney research provides sustainability of the efforts and facilitates the achievements of the goals. Community leaders and researchers became a team and develop a relationship in which commitment and empowerment facilitated the participation in all aspects of the research process. This initiative could be a useful tool for researchers, especially in low-middle income countries, to start research in a community, achieve objectives in a viable form, and open opportunities to further studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-022-02891-8.

Strength in Numbers: The Promise of Community-Based Participatory Research in Rural Education

Montana is a state that is ravaged by a suicide epidemic and mental health crisis, particularly among its youth. In an area in which harsh climates, geographic challenges, and distance to rural healthcare providers are significant barriers to mental healthcare accessibility, educators are faced with the acute social and emotional challenges of their students on a daily basis. This article documents the process and promise of utilizing novel and innovative community-based participatory research to support rural schools. By integrating a trauma-informed intervention in the school setting, while mobilizing local community resources, this interdisciplinary approach shows the ability to address the needs of adolescents while supporting rural educators.

Construct validation of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST)

BACKGROUND

The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) was developed to examine the level of partner (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) engagement in research studies. The REST is aligned with eight engagement principles based on the literature and consensus reached through a five round Delphi process. Each of the engagement principles has three-five corresponding items that are assessed on two Likert type scales quantity (how often: never, rarely, sometimes, often, always, not applicable) and quality (how well: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, not applicable). We conducted a comprehensive validation of the REST. Despite the importance of partner engagement in research, currently no gold standard measure exists.

METHODS

Multiple strategies were employed to validate the REST. Here, we examine the internal consistency of items for each of the eight engagement principles. In addition, we examine the convergent validity of the comprehensive (32-item) REST with other measures (e.g., medical mistrust, Community Engagement in Research Index, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool, Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Assessment In community-based Research). We propose two scoring approaches for the REST; one aligned with the engagement principles and the other aligned with levels of community engagement: (1) outreach and education, (2) consultation, (3) cooperation, (4) collaboration, and (5) partnership.

RESULTS

The REST has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.75) for each of the eight engagement principals measured on both scales (quality and quantity). The REST had negligible (e.g., medical mistrust, community engagement in research index), low (e.g., Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- benefits scale), and moderate (e.g., Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- synergy scale) statistically significant correlations with other measures based on the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. These results suggest the REST is measuring something similar and correlated to the existing measures, but it captures a different construct (perceived research engagement).

CONCLUSIONS

The REST is a valid and reliable tool to assess research engagement of community health stakeholders in the research process. Valid tools to assess research engagement are necessary to examine the impact of engagement on the scientific process and scientific discovery and move the field of stakeholder engagement from best practices and lessons learned to evidence-based approaches based on empirical data.

Managing community engagement in research in Uganda: insights from practices in HIV/AIDS research

Background

Community engagement (CE) in research is valuable for instrumental and intrinsic reasons. Despite existing guidance on how to ensure meaningful CE, much of what it takes to achieve this goal differs across settings. Considering the emerging trend towards mandating CE in many research studies, this study aimed at documenting how CE is conceptualized and implemented, and then providing context-specific guidance on how researchers and research regulators in Uganda could think about and manage CE in research.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews and focus group discussions involving forty-one respondents who were experienced in HIV/AIDS biomedical research involving CE. Thirty-eight of these were directly or indirectly associated with Uganda’s leading research institution in the field of HIV/AIDS. They included Principal Investigators, Community Liaisons Officers, Research Ethics Committee members and Community Advisory Board Members. Three respondents were from Uganda National Council for Science and Technology. Data were collected between August 2019 and August 2020, using audio-taped focus group discussions and key informant interviews, transcribed and analyzed manually to generate themes and subthemes.

Results

Three major themes emerged: goals or value of CE; the means of CE, and, the evaluation of CE. Goals or value of CE generated four subthemes representing the overarching goals of CE: (1) Promote communities’ agency; (2) Generate and sustain trust; (3) Protect and promote communities’ rights and interests; and, (4) Help studies optimize participation in the form of enrolment and retention of participants. What usually comes under the nomenclatures of methods, strategies, and approaches of CE, such as town-hall meetings, sports events, drama, and the like, should simply be understood as the means of CE, and it is not desirable to hold pre-conceived and fixed ideas about the best means to conduct CE in research since a lot depend on the context. Finally, the study found that despite CE’s critical importance, which suggests the need to track and evaluate it, CE is currently intermittently evaluated, and for inadequate motivations.

Conclusions

Existing guidance on how to conduct robust CE in research is no substitute for creativity, flexibility, and reflexivity on the part of both researchers and research regulators.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00797-6.

What Matters to Whom: Patient and Public Involvement in Research

We outline a call to action for reproductive health researchers to include patient and public involvement (PPI) in research. PPI prioritizes the patient perspective from study design through dissemination of results which centers the people research intends to serve. PPI highlights the patient as an expert in their own condition. PPI that includes groups harmed by health care disparities can draw attention to these harms and generate novel approaches to address them. Numerous frameworks exist for the use of PPI in research. Because obstetrics and gynecology conditions can be particularly sensitive, PPI is crucial in our field.

A Study Examining the Usefulness of a New Measure of Research Engagement

INTRODUCTION

Engagement of relevant stakeholders' ideas, opinions, and concerns is critical to the success of modern research projects. We have developed a tool to measure stakeholder engagement, called the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST). The purpose of this paper is to present the implementation and uptake of the stakeholder engagement measure REST among research teams, including the assessment of barriers and facilitating factors for use of the new research engagement measure in practice.

METHODS

In this implementation study, project team members participated in baseline and follow-up web-based surveys. Web-based interviews were conducted with a subset of project teams that implemented the REST. On the baseline survey, project teams were asked to provide details about up to three ongoing or recently completed projects, were asked if they agreed with compensation for REST completion, and were asked if they would like to send the survey to stakeholders or would prefer our project team to email their project stakeholders. Follow-up surveys contained questions on reactions to implementing REST and results of REST.

RESULTS

Project team members/researchers who completed the baseline survey (n=86) were mostly female (79%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (76%). Those who implemented REST were also mostly female (86%) and Non-Hispanic/Latino(a) White (71%), with an average of 11 years in academic research. About 98% of all participants completing the baseline survey had the capacity to survey partners, while 100% of all teams who implemented REST did. A small portion of respondents indicated the time commitment of REST would be a barrier (29% of baseline survey respondents, 10% of those who implemented REST) and indicated workload would be a barrier (31% of baseline survey respondents, 14% of those who implemented REST).

DISCUSSION

The data presented here indicate that REST implementation is feasible in a volunteer group of ongoing research projects.

Use of a community advisory board to build equitable algorithms for participation in clinical trials: a protocol paper for HoPeNET

Introduction

Participation from racial and ethnic minorities in clinical trials has been burdened by issues surrounding mistrust and access to healthcare. There is emerging use of machine learning (ML) in clinical trial recruitment and evaluation. However, for individuals from groups who are recipients of societal biases, utilisation of ML can lead to the creation and use of biased algorithms. To minimise bias, the design of equitable ML tools that advance health equity could be guided by community engagement processes. The Howard University Partnership with the National Institutes of Health for Equitable Clinical Trial Participation for Racial/Ethnic Communities Underrepresented in Research (HoPeNET) seeks to create an ML-based infrastructure from community advisory board (CAB) experiences to enhance participation of African-Americans/Blacks in clinical trials.

Methods and analysis

This triphased cross-sectional study (24 months, n=56) will create a CAB of community members and research investigators. The three phases of the study include: (1) identification of perceived barriers/facilitators to clinical trial engagement through qualitative/quantitative methods and systems-based model building participation; (2) operation of CAB meetings and (3) development of a predictive ML tool and outcome evaluation. Identified predictors from the participant-derived systems-based map will be used for the ML tool development.

Ethics and dissemination

We anticipate minimum risk for participants. Institutional review board approval and informed consent has been obtained and patient confidentiality ensured.

How Scientists Perceive CRISPR's Translational Promise and the Implications for Individuals with Genetic Conditions

CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) somatic genome editing, an important promissory technology, presents a case study of the movement of basic scientists into translational research. In this paper, we explore how scientists experience the pulls of CRISPR's power and the pushes of economic and societal pressures in adopting new translational roles. Given basic scientists' emerging contact with and influence upon individuals with genetic conditions, we also examine how scientists understand the perspectives of affected populations, both as potential subjects of early experiments and as the patients who could receive future treatments. Finally, we consider the ethical implications of our findings and call for innovative approaches to translational research that help scientists engage with people with genetic conditions in early translational research.

Engagement with a diverse Stakeholder Advisory Council for research in dementia care

BACKGROUND

The inclusion of stakeholders throughout the research process has been gaining recognition as an approach that can improve the quality and impact of research. Stakeholder engagement for dementia care research has been identified as a national priority, though evaluation of engagement strategies and their impact has been limited. In dementia care research, stakeholders can include individuals living with dementia, family care partners, and health and social care professionals in dementia care. A Stakeholder Advisory Council (SAC) was established to identify priorities for dementia care research that are most important to stakeholders. Strategies to build capacity for research and facilitate engagement among the SAC were used to identify the research priorities. This study describes the experiences of SAC members engaged in the research process.

METHODS

To evaluate stakeholder engagement, semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the SAC to understand their experiences and perspectives on the strategies used to facilitate engagement and build capacity for research. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive approach. Findings were presented to members of the SAC to determine whether they felt their perspectives and experiences were accurately represented. Final domains and themes presented here were approved by the SAC.

RESULTS

Interviews (N = 11) were conducted with members of the SAC representing each stakeholder group; persons living with dementia (n = 2); family care partners (n = 4), and health and social care professionals in dementia care (n = 5). Ten themes were categorized into four overarching domains: accessibility, council infrastructure, values and environment, and benefits of involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this qualitative study are a resource for researchers seeking to collaborate with diverse stakeholder groups to represent their perspectives in research, including individuals living with dementia. The domains and themes identified here support the inclusion of diverse stakeholders in the research process, centering engagement and capacity building strategies around individuals living with dementia.

Online interventions to support family caregivers: The value of community-engaged research practices

Family members provide significant amounts of unpaid care to aging, chronically ill, and disabled persons in their homes. They often do this with little education or support and commonly report feeling overwhelmed and stressed. Providing education and support to family caregivers has demonstrated benefit on the health and well-being of the caregiver and care-receiver. However, because "caregiver" is not a reimbursable category in health care, caregiver interventions need to be delivered in a cost-efficient way. Technology-delivered and self-administered intervention models are increasingly being recommended as a pragmatic way to support aging families in our communities. This paper outlines the redevelopment of two behavioral interventions to an exclusively online delivery. This case-study analysis presents a model for community-engaged intervention research practices, which have the potential to create interventions that are more sustainable and more likely to be implemented than those designed and tested with more traditional research methodology.

Evaluating Stakeholder Engagement: Stakeholder-Centric Instrumentation Process (SCIP)

Evaluating engagement in a research partnership can capture the success and impact of the research team-stakeholder partnerships. This article describes the Stakeholder-Centric Instrumentation Process (SCIP), an iterative method to develop an evaluation that reflects research team-stakeholder collective values, language, and priorities. We describe our implementation of the SCIP and provide the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Evaluation, an evaluation developed in collaboration with our advisory committee. Mean scores across three administrations of the tool remained constant. We monitored responses received from our advisory committee during each administration for changes in scores that guided refinements to our stakeholder engagement strategy. Face validity and acceptability questions showed high satisfaction for the tool's time required to complete, (M = 4.50, SD = 0.86), clarity (M = 4.56, SD = 0.78), and relevance (M = 4.67, SD = 0.49) (maximum score = 5). The SCIP methodology and the Stakeholder-Centric Engagement Tool can be used during study planning and data collection to capture research team-stakeholder collaborations that reflect stakeholder priorities.

THRIVE Conceptual Framework and Study Protocol: A Community-Partnered Longitudinal Multi-Cohort Study to Promote Child and Youth Thriving, Health Equity, and Community Strength

BACKGROUND

Given the profound inequities in maternal and child health along racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines, strength-based, community-partnered research is required to foster thriving children, families, and communities, where thriving is defined as optimal development across physical, mental, cognitive, and social domains. The Pittsburgh Study (TPS) is a community-partnered, multi-cohort study designed to understand and promote child and youth thriving, build health equity, and strengthen communities by integrating community partners in study design, implementation, and dissemination. TPS launched the Tracking Health, Relationships, Identity, EnVironment, and Equity (THRIVE) Study to evaluate children's developmental stages and contexts from birth through completion of high school and to inform a child health data hub accessible to advocates, community members, educators, health professionals, and policymakers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

TPS is rooted in community-partnered participatory research (CPPR), health equity, antiracism, and developmental science. Using our community-informed conceptual framework of child thriving, the THRIVE Study will assess cross-cutting measures of place, environment, health service use, and other social determinants of health to provide longitudinal associations with developmentally appropriate child and youth thriving outcomes across participants in six cohorts spanning from pregnancy through adolescence (child ages 0-18 years). Data from electronic health records, school records, and health and human services use are integrated to assess biological and social influences of thriving. We will examine changes over time using paired t-tests and adjusted linear regression models for continuous thriving scores and McNemar tests and adjusted logistic regression models for categorical outcomes (thriving/not thriving). Data analyses will include mixed models with a random intercept (in combination with the previously-specified types of regression models) to account for within-subject correlation.

DISCUSSION

By enhancing assessment of child and youth well-being, TPS will fill critical gaps in our understanding of the development of child and youth thriving over time and test strategies to support thriving in diverse communities and populations. Through CPPR and co-design, the study aims to improve child health inequities across multiple socioecological levels and developmental domains.

Community partners' responses to items assessing stakeholder engagement: Cognitive response testing in measure development

Background

Despite recognition of the importance of stakeholder input into research, there is a lack of validated measures to assess how well constituencies are engaged and their input integrated into research design. Measurement theory suggests that a community engagement measure should use clear and simple language and capture important components of underlying constructs, resulting in a valid measure that is accessible to a broad audience.

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate how community members understood and responded to a measure of community engagement developed to be reliable, valid, easily administered, and broadly usable.

Method

Cognitive response interviews were completed, during which participants described their reactions to items and how they processed them. Participants were asked to interpret item meaning, paraphrase items, and identify difficult or problematic terms and phrases, as well as provide any concerns with response options while responding to 16 of 32 survey items.

Results

The results of the cognitive response interviews of participants (N = 16) suggest concerns about plain language and literacy, clarity of question focus, and the lack of context clues to facilitate processing in response to items querying research experience. Minimal concerns were related to response options. Participants suggested changes in words and terms, as well as item structure.

Conclusion

Qualitative research can improve the validity and accessibility of measures that assess stakeholder experience of community-engaged research. The findings suggest wording and sentence structure changes that improve ability to assess implementation of community engagement and its impact on research outcomes.

Listening to parents to understand their priorities for autism research

Involving the autism community in research increases the real-world translation and impact of findings. The current study explored the research priorities of parents of school-aged children on the autism spectrum across the home, school, and community settings. A combination of content analysis of an online questionnaire (n = 134) and Q-sort methodology (n = 9) was used. The most commonly identified research priorities in the online questionnaire were child health and well-being (home setting), socialisation and social support (school), and community awareness and understanding of autism (community). The Q-sort method highlighted different top priorities, with understanding the parent, sibling, child and family impact and stress the highest ranked priority for home, teacher/staff education and support for the school, and recognizing and supporting anxiety for the community. The implications of the findings are discussed in relation to shifting the framework of autism research to align research agendas with parental priorities.

Stakeholders' experiences of the public health research process: time to change the system?

BACKGROUND

The importance of engaging stakeholders in the research process is well recognised. Whilst engagement is important, guidelines and practices vary for how stakeholders should be involved in research and how to facilitate effective collaborative relationships.

METHODS

This study aimed to explore the perspectives and experiences of stakeholders involved in the policy and practice area of outdoor space and non-communicable disease prevention. Stakeholders interviewed included academics, practitioners, policy-makers, knowledge brokers and a funder.

RESULTS

The findings suggest that stakeholders had positive experiences when engaged meaningfully in the research process, where research projects were carefully planned and managed with attention to context and culture, and where the research team was effective, respectful and communicative. These factors help to facilitate the translation of research into policy and practice. However, multiple challenges of collaborative research were identified which related to structural and systemic challenges, building and maintaining relationships, use and collection of data and information, cultural perceptions of research and research generation, and getting evidence into action. Participants felt that changing the funding system, exploring more collaborative research methodologies, improved research translation, and more effective collaborative relationships at all stages of the research process could address some of these challenges.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight that, whilst stakeholder engagement in research was considered important, structural, cultural and individual practices impacted how this worked in practice. Identifying and testing solutions to address these challenges could improve synergies between research, policy, and practice and lead to the production of impactful research that reduces wastage of public funding, improves implementation of findings and ultimately improves public health outcomes.

Engage for Equity: Development of Community-Based Participatory Research Tools

We developed a set of four community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnership tools aimed at supporting community-academic research partnerships in strengthening their research processes, with the ultimate goal of improving research outcomes. The aim of this article is to describe the tools we developed to accomplish this goal: (1) the River of Life Exercise; (2) a Partnership Visioning Exercise; (3) a personalized Partnership Data Report of data from academic and community research partners; and (4) a Promising Practices Guide with aggregated survey data analyses on promising CBPR practices associated with CBPR and health outcomes from two national samples of CBPR projects that completed a series of two online surveys. Relying on Paulo Freire's philosophy of praxis, or the cycles of collective reflection and action, we developed a set of tools designed to support research teams in holding discussions aimed at strengthening research partnership capacity, aligning research partnership efforts to achieve grant aims, and recalling and operationalizing larger social justice goals. This article describes the theoretical framework and process for tool development and provides preliminary data from small teams representing 25 partnerships who attended face-to-face workshops and provided their perceptions of tool accessibility and intended future use.

Reaching Consensus on Principles of Stakeholder Engagement in Research

BACKGROUND

Stakeholder-engaged research is an umbrella term for the types of research that have community, patient, and/or stakeholder engagement, feedback, and bidirectional communication as approaches used in the research process. The level of stakeholder engagement across studies can vary greatly, from minimal engagement to fully collaborative partnerships.

OBJECTIVES

To present the process of reaching consensus among stakeholder and academic experts on the stakeholder engagement principles (EPs) and to identify definitions for each principle.

METHODS

We convened 19 national experts, 18 of whom remained engaged in a five-round Delphi process. The Delphi panel consisted of a broad range of stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocacy groups, clinicians, researchers). We used web-based surveys for most rounds (1-3 and 5) and an in-person meeting for round 4. Panelists evaluated EP titles and definitions with a goal of reaching consensus (>80% agreement). Panelists' comments guided modifications, with greater weight given to non-academic stakeholder input.

CONCLUSIONS

EP titles and definitions were modified over five Delphi rounds. The panel reached consensus on eight EPs (dropping four, modifying four, and adding one) and corresponding definitions. The Delphi process allowed for a stakeholder-engaged approach to methodological research. Stakeholder engagement in research is time consuming and requires greater effort but may yield a better, more relevant outcome than more traditional scientist-only processes. This stakeholder-engaged process of reaching consensus on EPs and definitions provides a key initial step for the content validation of a survey tool to examine the level of stakeholder engagement in research studies.

Stakeholder engagement in research: a scoping review of current evaluation methods

Aim: Evaluating stakeholder engagement can capture what meaningful engagement in research entails, how it develops, and how it is experienced by all collaborators. We conducted a scoping review of recent approaches for evaluating engagement in research and present a descriptive overview of our findings. Methods: We searched peer-reviewed journal articles published worldwide in English between January 2013 and June 2018. Results: Our final sample consisted of 17 articles. Various approaches for evaluating stakeholder engagement were identified including qualitative approaches, surveys and engagement logs. Discussion & conclusion: We identified evaluation approaches that varied in quality, detail and methods. Valid, systematic and inclusive approaches that are developed with research partners and are inclusive of diverse perspectives are an important area for future research.

Content validation of a quantitative stakeholder engagement measure

AIM

Using a stakeholder-engaged approach, this study conducted content validation and item reduction of a quantitative measure of research engagement.

METHODS

A five-round modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on items. Rounds 1-3 and 5 were conducted using web-based surveys. Round 4 consisted of a 2-day, in-person meeting. Delphi panelists received individualized reports outlining individual and aggregate group responses after rounds 1-3.

RESULTS

Over the five-round process, items were added, dropped, modified, and moved from one engagement principle to another. The number of items was reduced from 48 to 32, with three to five items corresponding to eight engagement principles.

CONCLUSIONS

Research that develops standardized, reliable, and accurate measures to assess stakeholder engagement is essential to understanding the impact of engagement on scientific discovery and the scientific process. Valid quantitative measures to assess stakeholder engagement in research are necessary to assess associations between engagement and research outcomes.

Success in Long-Standing Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) Partnerships: A Scoping Literature Review

Background. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is increasingly used by community and academic partners to examine health inequities and promote health equity in communities. Despite increasing numbers of CBPR partnerships, there is a lack of consensus in the field regarding what defines partnership success and how to measure factors contributing to success in long-standing CBPR partnerships. Aims. To identify indicators and measures of success in long-standing CBPR partnerships as part of a larger study whose aim is to develop and validate an instrument measuring success across CBPR partnerships. Methods. The Joanna Briggs Institute framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guided searches of three databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus) for articles published between 2007 and 2017 and evaluating success in CBPR partnerships existing longer than 4 years. Results. Twenty-six articles met search criteria. We identified 3 key domains and 7 subdomains with 28 underlying indicators of success. Six partnerships developed or used instruments to measure their success; only one included reliability or validity data. Discussion. CBPR partnerships reported numerous intersecting partner, partnership, and outcome indicators important for success. These results, along with data from key informant interviews with community and academic partners and advisement from a national panel of CBPR experts, will inform development of items for an instrument measuring CBPR partnership success. Conclusion. The development of a validated instrument measuring indicators of success will allow long-standing CBPR partnerships to evaluate their work toward achieving health equity and provide a tool for newly forming CBPR partnerships aiming to achieve long-term success.

Parenting Programs for Underserved Populations in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Issues of Scientific Integrity and Social Justice

Research suggests that parenting programs are effective for preventing behavioral and emotional difficulties in children, but a lot more attention needs to be paid to issues of context and culture during the development, testing and implementation of these interventions. The views and needs of underserved and disenfranchised communities in the US and the Global South are often not taken into account for the development and testing of interventions. The successful implementation of evidence-based interventions for vulnerable children and families in underserved and marginalized communities requires careful consideration of how existing paradigms of prevention, evaluation, and implementation science impact issues of social justice and equity. This paper will describe how a team of parenting program researchers has been collaborating with their partners globally in generating local knowledge by balancing the need for rigorous scientific methods with issues of power. Authors from the U.S., Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia draw on their experiences regarding challenges and successes with issues regarding study design and measurement, the transferability and adaptation of interventions, and the dissemination and implementation of different parenting interventions while placing communities at the center of their efforts through participatory methods. We describe innovative approaches that span the continuum of intervention development, adaptation, optimization, evaluation, implementation, and scale up of different parenting programs for vulnerable children and families across the world. We conclude by offering specific and pragmatic recommendations to increase access of culturally relevant and effective parenting programs in these communities.

Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Team-Based to Clinician-Focused Implementation of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care

Introduction: For many patients, primary care is an appropriate setting for advance care planning (ACP). ACP focuses on what matters most to patients and ensuring health care supports patient-defined goals. ACP may involve interactions between a clinician and a patient, but for seriously ill patients ACP could be managed by a team. Methods: We are conducting a cluster randomized trial comparing team-based to clinician-focused ACP using the Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) in 42 practices recruited from 7 practice-based research networks (PBRNs). Practices were randomized to one of the two models. Patients are referred to the study after engaging in ACP in primary care. Our target enrollment is 1260 subjects. Patient data are collected at enrollment, six months and one year. Primary outcomes are patient-reported goal-concordant care and days at home. Secondary outcomes include additional patient measures, clinician/team experience, and practice-level measures of SICP implementation. Study Implementation: This trial was designed and is conducted by the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC), a consortium of PBRNs focused on integrating engagement with patients, families, and other stakeholders into primary care research and practice. The trial pairs a comparative effectiveness study with implementation of a new program and is designed to balance fidelity to the assigned model with flexibility to allow each practice to adapt implementation to their environment and priorities. Our dissemination will report the results of comparing the two models and the implementation experience of the practices to create guidance for the spread of ACP in primary care.

Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective

OBJECTIVES

To develop and examine the content and face validity of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research projects from a patient partner perspective.

METHODS

Our team of researchers and patient partners conducted a mixed qualitative and quantitative study in three phases. Participants were English-speaking adult patients (including informal caregivers, family members, and friends) with varying experiences as partners in research projects in Canada. 1) Questionnaire items were generated following thematic analysis of in-depth interviews and published literature. 2) A three-round e-Delphi survey process via email correspondence was undertaken to refine and select the items for a provisional PEIRS. 3) Two rounds of cognitive interviewing elicited participants' understanding and opinions of each item and the structure of the PEIRS.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty items were generated from 18 interviews and organized across eight themes of meaningful engagement of patients in health research to form an initial questionnaire. The e-Delphi survey and cognitive interviewing each included 12 participants with a range of self-reported diseases, health-related conditions, and use of healthcare services. The e-Delphi survey yielded a 43-item provisional PEIRS. The PEIRS was then reduced to 37 items organized across seven themes after 1) refinement of problems in its instructions and items, and 2) the combining of two themes into one.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a 37-item self-reported questionnaire that has demonstrated preliminary content and face validity for assessing the quality of patient engagement in research.

The science of stakeholder engagement in research: classification, implementation, and evaluation

In this commentary, we discuss the science of stakeholder engagement in research. We propose a classification system with definitions to determine where projects lie on the stakeholder engagement continuum. We discuss the key elements of implementation and evaluation of stakeholder engagement in research posing key questions to consider when doing this work. We commend and critique the work of Hamilton et al. in their multilevel stakeholder engagement in a VA implementation trial of evidence-based quality improvement in women's health primary care. We also discuss the need for more work in this area to enhance the science of stakeholder engagement in research.