Strengthening community involvement in grant review: insights from the Community-University Research Partnership (CURES) pilot review process

Study protocol: Exploring the use of Family Health Histories in the African American community to reduce health disparities in Flint, Michigan

Background Health disparities are costly and preventable differences in disease progression that disproportionately affect minority communities such as African Americans. Practices to reduce health disparities can be rooted in prevention, particularly through screening tools. Family Health History tools are preventative screening mechanisms meant to explore family history to better understand how an individual's health can potentially be predicted or impacted. These tools are underutilized in the African American community. Contributions to this underutilization include a lack of cultural tailoring in the tools, a lack of health literacy in community members, and a lack of effective health communication. The Family Health History Study will create a culturally appropriate Family Health History toolkit to increase family health history utilization and ultimately decrease health disparities. Methods The proposed sample will be composed of 195 African American adults ages 18 + who live in Genesee County, Michigan. The study consists of two phases: the development phase and the randomized pilot study phase. The goal of the development phase (n = 95) is to explore how Family Health History toolkits can be modified to better serve the African American community using a community based participatory research approach and to create a culturally tailored family health history toolkit. In the pilot study phase, 100 participants will be randomized to the culturally tailored toolkit or the current standard Family Health History toolkit. Outcomes will include feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. Discussion This study will result in a culturally appropriate Family Health History tool that is co-developed with community members that can be utilized by African American adults to better understand their family health histories. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05358964 Date: May 5, 2022.

Mobilizing community-driven health promotion through community granting programs: a rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

Effective health promotion responds to the unique needs of communities. Community granting programs that fund community-driven health promotion initiatives are a potential mechanism to meet those unique needs. While numerous community health-focused programs are available, the various strategies used by granting programs to foster engagement, administer grants and support awardees have not been systematically evaluated. This rapid systematic review explores the administration of community granting programs and how various program components impact process and population health outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across three databases: Medline, SocINDEX, and Political Science Database. Single reviewers completed screening, consistent with a rapid review protocol. Studies describing or evaluating community granting programs for health or public health initiatives were included. Data regarding program characteristics were extracted and studies were evaluated for quality. A convergent integrated approach was used to analyze quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

Thirty-five community granting programs, described in 36 studies, were included. Most were descriptive reports or qualitative studies conducted in the USA. Program support for grant awardees included technical assistance, workshops and training, program websites, and networking facilitation. While most programs reported on process outcomes, few reported on community or health outcomes; such outcomes were positive when reported. Programs reported that many funded projects were likely sustainable beyond program funding, due to the development of awardee skills, new partnerships, and securing additional funding. From the perspectives of program staff and awardees, facilitators included the technical assistance and workshops provided by the programs, networking amongst awardees, and the involvement of community members. Barriers included short timelines to develop proposals and allocate funds.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive overview of health-related community granting programs. Grant awardees benefit from technical assistance, workshops, and networking with other awardees. Project sustainability is enhanced by the development of new community partnerships and grant-writing training for awardees. Community granting programs can be a valuable strategy to drive community health, with several key elements that enhance community mobilization.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO #CRD42023399364.

What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom.

METHODS

Realist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding.

RESULTS

We analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes configurations (CMOCs) for 50 interventions, which formed the basis of our synthesis. Shorter applications, reviewer and applicant training, virtual funding panels, enhanced decision models, institutional submission quotas, applicant training in peer review and grant-writing reduced interrater variability, increased relevance of funded research, reduced time taken to write and review applications, promoted increased investment into innovation, and lowered cost of panels.

CONCLUSIONS

Reports of 50 interventions in different areas of peer review provide useful guidance on ways of solving common issues with the peer review process. Evidence of the broader impact of these interventions on the research ecosystem is still needed, and future research should aim to identify processes that consistently work to improve peer review across funders and research contexts.

Building a pipeline of community-engaged researchers: How interdisciplinary translational research training programs can collaborate with their Community Research Advisory Councils

Community research advisory councils (C-RAC) bring together community members with interest in research to support design, evaluation, and dissemination of research in the communities they represent. There are few ways for early career researchers, such as TL1 trainees, to develop skills in community-engaged research, and there are limited opportunities for C-RAC members to influence early career researchers. In our novel training collaboration, TL1 trainees presented their research projects to C-RAC members who provided feedback. We present on initial evidence of student learning and summarize lessons learned that TL1 programs and C-RACs can incorporate into future collaborations.

Engaging people with lived experience in the grant review process

People with lived experience are individuals who have first-hand experience of the medical condition(s) being considered. The value of including the viewpoints of people with lived experience in health policy, health care, and health care and systems research has been recognized at many levels, including by funding agencies. However, there is little guidance or established best practices on how to include non-academic reviewers in the grant review process. Here we describe our approach to the inclusion of people with lived experience in every stage of the grant review process. After a budget was created for a specific call, a steering committee was created. This group included researchers, people with lived experience, and health systems administrators. This group developed and issued the call. After receiving proposals, stage one was scientific review by researchers. Grants were ranked by this score and a short list then reviewed by people with lived experience as stage two. Finally, for stage three, the Steering Committee convened and achieved consensus based on information drawn from stages one and two. Our approach to engage people with lived experience in the grant review process was positively reviewed by everyone involved, as it allowed for patient perspectives to be truly integrated. However, it does lengthen the review process. The proposed model offers further practical insight into including people with lived experience in the review process.

Improving the Translational Medicine Process: Moving Patients From "End-Users" to "Engaged Collaborators"

Translational medicine works through the definition of unmet medical needs, their understanding and final resolution. In this complex and multi-disciplinary process patients have always been regarded as “end-users” or no more than “data provider.” Considering that the translational practice is nowadays highly inefficient (i.e., large intellectual and economical resources are wasted with limited impact on people health) here we propose to reverse the process: start from patients, engage them, and keep them at the center. A new partnership needs to be formed between the patients and the health care professionals, as well as the treating physicians, to make the most out of the current “health resources.” New patient-centric approaches are emerging but they remain isolated phenomena often difficult to implement. Here—with this perspective—we aim at thinking differently and learning from new experiences. We will provide some successful examples of change, and we will discuss new approaches to create a radical change in the way translational medicine is managed and how this would significantly impact people health and health care systems.

Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals

Introduction

This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants.

Methods

The University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. In total, 4 studies were discussed by both study sections.

Results

Comparisons of reviews revealed little difference between ratings of community reviewers and those of scientific reviewers, and that community reviewers largely refrained from critiquing scientific or technical aspects of proposals.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that involving community reviewers early in the grant cycle, and exposing them to the entirety of the review process, can bolster community engagement without compromising the rigor of grant evaluations.

Developing and Piloting a Community Scientist Academy to Engage Communities and Patients in Research

Introduction

Effective translational research requires engagement and collaboration between communities, researchers, and practitioners. We describe a community scientist academy (CSA) developed at the suggestion of our CTSA's community advisory board to engage and capacitate community members by 1) increasing community members' and patients' understanding about the research process and 2) increasing their access to opportunities to influence and participate in research. A joint CTSA/community planning committee developed this 8-hour workshop including sessions on: 1) research definitions and processes; 2) study design; 3) study implementation; and 4) ways to get involved in research. The workshop format includes interactive exercises, content slides and videos, and researcher and community presenters.

Methods

Community-based information sessions allowed assessment of community interest before piloting. Two pilots of the CSA were conducted with community members and patients. Participant data and a pre/post knowledge and feedback survey provides evaluation data.

Results

The pilot included 24 diverse participants, over half of whom had not previously participated in research. Evaluation data suggest knowledge gains. Post- CSA, one third have reviewed CTSA pilot grants and over 80% want to attend further training.

Conclusions

The CSA can demystify the research process for those underrepresented in research and facilitate their engagement and influence within CTSAs.