Community Experiences and Perceptions of Clinical and Translational Research and Researchers

Building Research for Academic and Community Equity (BRACE): A Toolkit for Community Research Partnerships

Health and human service community organizations and researchers have important insights and resources to share with each other, yet often have very little information about how to interact in meaningful and equitable ways. Conceptualized by and for community organization professionals wanting to equitably interact with academic researchers, BRACE (Building Research for Academic and Community Equity) is a toolkit easily accessible to community members which explains research information and jargon in clear terms. BRACE uses community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles to guide both community organizations and academics seeking to partner on research. The BRACE toolkit's two main sections focus on identifying ideal aspects of community-academic research partnerships and writing grant proposals. Tools such as BRACE have the potential to increase the impact of community-engaged research by providing concrete guides for building partnerships and potentially sustaining them through grant funding.

Integrating participants as partners in research governance and operations: an approach from the All of Us Research Program Engagement Core

OBJECTIVES

During the last two decades, researchers and funders increasingly recognised the value of engaging patients and communities in research. Despite progress, community engagement remains challenging. There are few examples of successful participant engagement in governance of large-scale research programmes. Here we describe efforts to engage participants as partners in new governance roles in the All of Us Research Program, a precision medicine research initiative which intends to enrol at least one million participants. Using intentional, participant-centric engagement strategies, the All of Us Engagement Core recruited and integrated a diverse group of participants into governance roles including Steering and Executive Committees. Evaluation measures included a survey to assess Consortium Members' readiness for participant engagement.

RESULTS

Over a 3-year period, all items on the survey increased (higher readiness). Of the 291 respondents to the 2021 survey, respondents most frequently agreed that participant perspectives are essential (100%), participants understand enough to contribute meaningfully (94%) and participants should be involved in setting goals (96%). Respondents least frequently agreed that participants should have an equal voice in Working Groups (75%), Steering Committee (69%) and Executive Committee (63%).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, participants can be effectively integrated into large-scale research governance, which is associated with increased researcher readiness for engagement.

Lab Meets World: the Case for Use-Inspired Basic Research in Affective Science

We join others in envisioning a future for affective science that addresses society's most pressing needs. To move toward this vision, we consider a research paradigm that emerged in other disciplines: use-inspired basic research. This paradigm transcends the traditional basic-applied dichotomy, which pits the basic goal of fundamental scientific understanding against the applied goal of use in solving social problems. In reality, these goals are complementary, and use-inspired basic research advances them simultaneously. Here, we build a case for use-inspired basic research-how it differs from traditional basic science and why affective scientists should engage in it. We first examine how use-inspired basic research challenges problematic assumptions of a strict basic-applied dichotomy. We then discuss how it is consistent with advances in affective science that recognize context specificity as the norm and consider ethical issues of use being a complementary goal. Following this theoretical discussion, we differentiate the implementation of use-inspired basic research from that of traditional basic science. We draw on examples from recent research to illustrate differences: social problems as a starting point, stakeholder and community engagement, and integration of research and service. In conclusion, we invite affective scientists to embrace the "lab meets world" perspective of use-inspired basic research as a promising pathway to real-world impact.

Integrating community voices in the research continuum: Perspectives on a consultation service

The Community Research Advisory Council (C-RAC) of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research was established in 2009 to provide community-engaged research consultation services. In 2016-2017, C-RAC members and researchers were surveyed on their consultation experiences. Survey results and a 2019 stakeholder meeting proceeding helped redesign the consultation services. Transitioning to virtual consultations during COVID-19, the redesigning involved increasing visibility, providing consultation materials in advance, expanding member training, and effective communications. An increase in consultations from 28 (2009-2017) to 114 (2020-2022) was observed. Implementing stakeholder-researcher inputs is critical to holistic and sustained community-engaged research.

Transforming the field: the role of academic health centers in promoting and sustaining equity based community engaged research

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) and community engaged research (CEnR) are key to promoting community and patient engagement in actionable evidence-based strategies to improve research for health equity. Rapid growth of CBPR/CEnR research projects have led to the broad adoption of partnering principles in community-academic partnerships and among some health and academic organizations. Yet, transformation of principles into best practices that foster trust, shared power, and equity outcomes still remain fragmented, are dependent on individuals with long term projects, or are non-existent. This paper describes how we designed our Engage for Equity PLUS intervention that leverages the leadership and membership of champion teams (including community-engaged faculty, community partners and patient advocates) to improve organizational policies and practices to support equity based CBPR/CEnR. This article describes the feasibility and preliminary findings from engaging champion teams from three very different academic health centers. We reflect on the learnings from Engage for Equity PLUS; the adaptation of the intervention design and implementation, including the development of a new institutional assessment using mixed research methods; and our organizational theory of change. In summary, our design and preliminary data from the three academic health centers provide support for new attention to the role of institutional practices and processes needed to sustain equity-based patient and community-engaged research and CBPR and transform the field.

Effects of a Service-Learning Neuroscience Course on Mood and Intergroup Anxiety

"Everyday Neuroscience" is an academically based community service (ABCS) course in which college students teach basic neuroscience lab activities to high school students in an under-funded school district, working in small groups on hands-on science activities for 10 weekly sessions. The present study examined the possible psychological and social effects of this experience on the college students, in comparison with peers not enrolled in such a course, by observing and surveying the high school and college students across the 10-week course period. First, the teaching-learning sessions in the course successfully promoted science-focused discussion between the high school and college students for 45 to 60 minutes each week. Second, college students in "Everyday Neuroscience" reported higher positive affect and less intergroup anxiety at the end of the semester compared with the control group of college students who were not in the course. Finally, surveys of the high school students revealed that they found the sessions to be positive social experiences. These findings reveal that a neuroscience-based community engagement course can be both a positive experience for the community partner and a benefit for college students by promoting psychological and social wellness.

Developing criteria for research translation decision-making in community settings: a systematic review and thematic analysis informed by the Knowledge to Action Framework and community input

Background

There is a pressing need to translate empirically supported interventions, products, and policies into practice to prevent and control prevalent chronic diseases. According to the Knowledge to Action (K2A) Framework, only those interventions deemed “ready” for translation are likely to be disseminated, adopted, implemented, and ultimately institutionalized. Yet, this pivotal step has not received adequate study. The purpose of this paper was to create a list of criteria that can be used by researchers, in collaboration with community partners, to help evaluate intervention readiness for translation into community and/or organizational settings.

Methods

The identification and selection of criteria involved reviewing the K2A Framework questions from the “decision to translate” stage, conducting a systematic review to identify characteristics important for research translation in community settings, using thematic analysis to select unique research translation decision criteria, and incorporating researcher and community advisory board feedback.

Results

The review identified 46 published articles that described potential criteria to decide if an intervention appears ready for translation into community settings. In total, 17 unique research translation decision criteria were identified. Of the 8 themes from the K2A Framework that were used to inform the thematic analysis, all 8 were included in the final criteria list after research supported their importance for research translation decision-making. Overall, the criteria identified through our review highlighted the importance of an intervention’s public health, cultural, and community relevance. Not only are intervention characteristics (e.g., evidence base, comparative effectiveness, acceptability, adaptability, sustainability, cost) necessary to consider when contemplating introducing an intervention to the “real world,” it is also important to consider characteristics of the target setting and/or population (e.g., presence of supporting structure, support or buy-in, changing sociopolitical landscape).

Conclusions

Our research translation decision criteria provide a holistic list for identifying important barriers and facilitators for research translation that should be considered before introducing an empirically supported intervention into community settings. These criteria can be used for research translation decision-making on the individual and organizational level to ensure resources are not wasted on interventions that cannot be effectively translated in community settings to yield desired outcomes.

What 'translating science' can learn from 'translating languages'

One of the most important steps in drug discovery is the translation of preclinical data to humans. However, the term 'translation' has numerous connotations and, often, different stakeholders literally speak different languages. Learning from many years of experience and new concepts in language translation could increase the success rate in translating biomedical research. Beyond being bilingual, this includes applying the concept of functional equivalence, the main characteristic of a good translation. Given that function is defined by the source language text, starting with the patient has advantages over the classical bench-to-bedside approach. Good translators need transfer competence, including knowledge of the limitations of translation. As with languages, computer-assisted translation(-al research) could support increasing functional equivalence and, thus, translation success.

Engaging Families in Life Course Intervention Research: An Essential Step in Advancing Equity

Life course intervention research requires a thorough understanding of complex factors that interact to affect health over time. Partnerships with families and communities are critical to understanding these interconnections and identifying effective interventions. Here, family and community engagement are presented, aligned with the 5 phases of the life course intervention research framework: planning, design, implementation, evaluation, and translation. During planning, the researcher considers their own starting position and what they need to learn from families and the community. The design phase produces a plan for family engagement that is layered, iterative, and includes qualitative methods that will inform life course modeling and the research process. The implementation phase includes administrative actions such as creating opportunities for contributions and providing compensation to family and community partners. The evaluation phase requires measurement of the quality of partnerships with families and community and includes making adjustments as indicated to improve these partnerships. This phase also calls for reflection on the impact these partnerships had on the intervention, including if they made a difference for those being served. During translation, the researcher works with all partners, including families and communities, about follow up steps toward project continuation, replication, or completion. The researcher also works collaboratively in determining how the study results are shared. A holistic approach to health over the life course that is designed and executed in partnership with families and their community can generate research findings with broad practical applicability and strong translational potential.

Family-focused obesity prevention program implementation in urban versus rural communities: a case study

Purpose

Despite public health efforts to reduce childhood obesity, there remains an unequal distribution of obesity among rural and urban children, with higher rates in rural areas. However, few studies have compared differences in program delivery. This paper aims to describe differences between an urban and rural program delivery of a family-focused, community-based intervention program to prevent and reduce obesity among children.

Methods

This paper uses a case study format to provide a descriptive analysis of similar obesity prevention programs, designed by the same research team, implemented in Minnesota in different settings (i.e., an urban and rural setting) with significant community engagement in the adaptation process. The rural NU-HOME program is compared to HOME-Plus, an urban family-based obesity prevention program for school-aged children.

Results

Community engagement in the adaptation process of an urban program to a rural program confirmed some anticipated program content and delivery similarities while identifying key differences that were necessary for adaptation related to engagement with the community, recruitment and data collection, and intervention delivery.

Discussion

When adapting research-tested programs from urban to rural areas, it is important to identify the modifiable behavioral, social, and environmental factors associated with obesity to ensure the content of effective childhood obesity prevention programs is relevant. Customizing a program to meet the needs of the community may increase reach, engagement, and sustainability. In addition, long-term dissemination of a tailored program may significantly reduce childhood obesity in rural communities and be implemented in other rural settings nationally.

Storytelling training to promote stakeholder engagement in research dissemination

Storytelling is increasingly recognized as a culturally relevant, human-centered strategy and has been linked to improvements in health knowledge, behavior, and outcomes. The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research designed and implemented a storytelling training program as a potentially versatile approach to promote stakeholder engagement. Data collected from multiple sources, including participant ratings, responses to open-ended questions, and field notes, consistently pointed to high-level satisfaction and acceptability of the program. As a next step, the storytelling training process and its impact need to be further investigated.

Recruitment and Retention Strategies Among Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Web-Based Intervention Trials: Retrospective Qualitative Analysis

Background

Racial and ethnic minority groups are underrepresented in health research, contributing to persistent health disparities in the United States. Identifying effective recruitment and retention strategies among minority groups and their subpopulations is an important research agenda. Web-based intervention approaches are becoming increasingly popular with the ubiquitous use of the internet. However, it is not completely clear which recruitment and retention strategies have been successful in web-based intervention trials targeting racial and ethnic minorities.

Objective

This study aims to describe lessons learned in recruiting and retaining one of the understudied ethnic minority women—Korean Americans—enrolled in a web-based intervention trial and to compare our findings with the strategies reported in relevant published web-based intervention trials.

Methods

Multiple sources of data were used to address the objectives of this study, including the study team’s meeting minutes, participant tracking and contact logs, survey reports, and postintervention interviews. In addition, an electronic search involving 2 databases (PubMed and CINAHL) was performed to identify published studies using web-based interventions. Qualitative analysis was then performed to identify common themes addressing recruitment and retention strategies across the trials using web-based intervention modalities.

Results

A total of 9 categories of recruitment and retention strategies emerged: authentic care; accommodation of time, place, and transportation; financial incentives; diversity among the study team; multiple, yet standardized modes of communication; mobilizing existing community relationships with efforts to build trust; prioritizing features of web-based intervention; combined use of web-based and direct recruitment; and self-directed web-based intervention with human support. Although all the studies included in the analysis combined multiple strategies, prioritizing features of web-based intervention or use of human support were particularly relevant for promoting recruitment and retention of racial and ethnic minorities in web-based intervention trials.

Conclusions

The growing prevalence of internet use among racial and ethnic minority populations represents an excellent opportunity to design and deliver intervention programs via the internet. Future research should explore and compare successful recruitment and retention methods among race and ethnic groups for web-based interventions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03726619; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03726619.

Structural Community Governance: Importance for Community-Academic Research Partnerships

Community based participatory research (CBPR) emphasizes democratic knowledge production and joint action between academics and communities to promote health equity through multilevel interventions. While much scholarship has expressed a commitment to collaboration between researchers and communities, effective methods of structural governance between community and academic stakeholders is under explored. We fill this gap by presenting a conceptual and empirical analysis describing multiple dimensions of structural governance in CBPR partnerships. First, we integrate public policy evidence on effective collaborative governance designs with the emerging literature in CBPR to create a conceptual model. Next, we utilize internet surveys of 179 federally funded community engaged research projects to construct and assess a measure of structural governance across multiple dimensions using confirmatory factor analysis. We explore whether antecedent factors such as the stage of the partnership and ethnic composition are associated with these dimensions and we examine associations for each of these components on positive perceptions of community involvement of research and collective empowerment. We develop a robust multidimensional measure of structural governance that is positively associated with perceptions of increased community involvement in research and collective empowerment.

Framing clinical and translational science: Examining the strategic social media communications of NCATS-funded CTSAs

INTRODUCTION

Many Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) focus their energy on operational aspects of running their hub, but may not devote enough energy and resources toward branding and effective communication. However, CTSAs have an important mission when it comes to communicating effectively with their stakeholders through social media. Using framing theory as the underpinning, the purpose of this content analysis is to investigate the ways in which CTSAs use Twitter to communicate with their various stakeholders, the type of content they post, and the type of engagement their tweets garner.

METHODS

We examined 349 tweets posted from January 2019 to January 2020 from 19 CTSA Twitter accounts (sampled from a total of 35 CTSA accounts). A thematic codebook was generated using tweets randomly chosen from the sample. Content analysis was performed on the entire tweet sample by four coders using the codebook (alpha = 0.89).

RESULTS

CTSAs tweeted the most about events (29.8%), and the least about study recruitment (2.01%). Most tweets included images (59.31%) and hashtags (51.29%), but received little user engagement on the average post (average: 4.38 likes and 1.94 retweets). CTSAs tweeted most from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. PST and received the most engagement. Most CTSAs had a dedicated person (e.g., manager, coordinator) handling their communications.

DISCUSSION

Our analysis shows multiple opportunities for CTSAs to engage with stakeholders and the public, as well as standardize and improve their Twitter communications to effectively reach a broader audience.

Recognizing Cross-Institutional Fiscal and Administrative Barriers and Facilitators to Conducting Community-Engaged Clinical and Translational Research

PURPOSE

This qualitative study examined fiscal and administrative (i.e., pre- and post-award grants process) barriers and facilitators to community-engaged research among stakeholders across 4 Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions.

METHOD

A purposive sample of 24 key informants from 3 stakeholder groups-community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators-from the CTSA institutions at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Medical University of South Carolina, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, and Yale University participated. Semistructured interviews were conducted in March-July 2018, including questions about perceived challenges and best practices in fiscal and administrative processes in community-engaged research. Transcribed interviews were independently reviewed and analyzed using the Rapid Assessment Process to facilitate key theme and quote identification.

RESULTS

Community partners were predominantly Black, academic researchers and research administrators were predominantly White, and women made up two-thirds of the overall sample. Five key themes were identified: level of partnership equity, partnership collaboration and communication, institutional policies and procedures, level of familiarity with varying fiscal and administrative processes, and financial management expectations. No stakeholders reported best practices for the institutional policies and procedures theme. Cross-cutting challenges included communication gaps between stakeholder groups; lack of or limits in supporting community partners' fiscal capacity; and lack of collective awareness of each stakeholder group's processes, procedures, and needs. Cross-cutting best practices centered on shared decision making and early and timely communication between all stakeholder groups in both pre- and post-award processes.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the importance of equitable processes, triangulated communication, transparency, and recognizing and respecting different financial management cultures within community-engaged research. This work can be a springboard used by CTSA institutions to build on available resources that facilitate co-learning and discussions between community partners, academic researchers, and research administrators on fiscal readiness and administrative processes for improved community-engaged research partnerships.

Exploring community engaged research experiences and preferences: a multi-level qualitative investigation

BACKGROUND

Community engagement may make research more relevant, translatable, and sustainable, hence improving the possibility of reducing health disparities. The purpose of this study was to explore strategies for community engagement adopted by research teams and identify areas for enhancing engagement in future community engaged research.

METHODS

The Community Engagement Program of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Clinical and Translational Research hosted a forum to engage researchers and community partners in group discussion to reflect on their diverse past and current experiences in planning, implementing, and evaluating community engagement in health research. A total of 50 researchers, research staff, and community partners participated in five concurrent semi-structured group interviews and a whole group wrap-up session. Group interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Four themes with eight subthemes were identified. Main themes included: Community engagement is an ongoing and iterative process; Community partner roles must be well-defined and clearly communicated; Mutual trust and transparency are central to community engagement; and Measuring community outcomes is an evolving area. Relevant subthemes were: engaging community partners in various stages of research; mission-driven vs. "checking the box"; breadth and depth of engagement; roles of community partner; recruitment and selection of community partners; building trust; clear communication for transparency; and conflict in community engaged research.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the benefits and challenges of community engaged research. Enhanced capacity building for community engagement, including training and communication tools for both community and researcher partners, are needed.

The GGLEAM Study: Understanding Glaucoma in the Ohio Amish

Glaucoma leads to millions of cases of visual impairment and blindness around the world. Its susceptibility is shaped by both environmental and genetic risk factors. Although over 120 risk loci have been identified for glaucoma, a large portion of its heritability is still unexplained. Here we describe the foundation of the Genetics of GLaucoma Evaluation in the AMish (GGLEAM) study to investigate the genetic architecture of glaucoma in the Ohio Amish, which exhibits lower genetic and environmental heterogeneity compared to the general population. To date, we have enrolled 81 Amish individuals in our study from Holmes County, Ohio. As a part of our enrollment process, 62 GGLEAM study participants (42 glaucoma-affected and 20 unaffected individuals) received comprehensive eye examinations and glaucoma evaluations. Using the data from the Anabaptist Genealogy Database, we found that 80 of the GGLEAM study participants were related to one another through a large, multigenerational pedigree containing 1586 people. We plan to integrate the health and kinship data obtained for the GGLEAM study to interrogate glaucoma genetics and pathophysiology in this unique population.

Academia Europaea Position Paper on Translational Medicine: The Cycle Model for Translating Scientific Results into Community Benefits

Introduction: Translational science has gained prominence in medicine, but there is still much work to be done before scientific results are used optimally and incorporated into everyday health practice. As the main focus is still on generating new scientific data with financial resources primarily available for that purpose, other activities that are necessary in the transition from research to community benefit are considered less needy. The European Statistical Office of the European Commission has recently reported that 1.7 million people under 75 years of age died in Europe in 2016, with around 1.2 million of those deaths being avoidable through effective primary prevention and public health intervention. Therefore, Academia Europaea, one of the five Pan-European networks that form SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies), a key element of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), has launched a project to develop a model to facilitate and accelerate the utilisation of scientific knowledge for public and community benefit. Methods: During the process, leaders in the field, including prominent basic and clinical researchers, editors-in-chief of high-impact journals publishing translational research articles, translational medicine (TM) centre leaders, media representatives, academics and university leaders, developed the TM cycle, a new model that we believe could significantly advance the development of TM. Results: This model focuses equally on the acquisition of new scientific results healthcare, understandable and digestible summation of results, and their communication to all participants. We have also renewed the definition in TM, identified challenges and recommended solutions. Conclusion: The authors, including senior officers of Academia Europaea, produced this document to serve as a basis for revising thinking on TM with the end result of enabling more efficient and cost-effective healthcare.