The Community Leadership Institute of Kentucky (CLIK): A Collaborative Workforce and Leadership Development Program

The Bidirectional Engagement and Equity (BEE) Research Framework to Guide Community-Academic Partnerships: Developed From a Narrative Review and Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives

BACKGROUND

The engagement of community partners in equitable partnerships with academic teams is necessary to achieve health equity. However, there is no standardized approach to support bidirectional engagement among research stakeholders in the context of partnership equity at each phase of the research process.

OBJECTIVE

We describe the development of a systematic framework along with competencies and tools promoting bidirectional engagement and equity within community-academic partnerships at each phase of the research process.

DESIGN

We conducted a four-step research process between November 2020 and December 2023 for framework development: (1) a narrative literature review; (2) expansion of existing bidirectional, equitable framework; (3) a scientific review with two groups of cognitive interviews (five community engagement researchers and five community leaders and members); and (4) three community-based organization leader focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus group data.

RESULTS

Using results of each step, the framework was iteratively developed, yielding four phases of the bidirectional engagement and equity (BEE) research framework: Relationship building and assessment of goals and resources (Phase I); form a community-academic partnership based on shared research interests (may include multilevel stakeholders) (Phase II); develop a research team comprising members from each partnering organization (Phase III); and implement the six-step equitable research process (Phase IV). Bidirectional learning and partnership principles are at the core of the partnership, particularly in Phases II-IV. Competencies and tools for conducting an equitable, engaged research process were provided.

DISCUSSION

This conceptual framework offers a novel, stepwise approach and competencies for community-academic partners to successfully partner and conduct the research process equitably.

CONCLUSION

The BEE research framework can be implemented to standardize the conduct of an equitable, engaged research process within a community-academic partnership, while improving knowledge and trust across partners and, ultimately, an increased return on investment and sustainability to benefit both partners in the area of health outcomes and ultimately health equity.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The development of this framework was co-led with a community organization in which two leaders in the organization were equitably involved in each phase of the research process, including grant development, study design, participant recruitment, protocol development for focus groups and community and researcher review, framework design and content and dissemination of this manuscript as a co-author. For grant development, the community leader completed the give-get grid components for them as a partner. They also wrote up their lived experience in the research process for the progress report. For the focus groups, one community leader co-led the focus group with the academic partner. For the narrative review, the community leaders did not actively conduct the narrative review but observed the process through the academic partners. One community leader wrote the section 'relationship building' and 'bidirectional learning' sections with the assistance of the academic partner, while they both equally provided input on other sections of the manuscript alongside academic partners. The community leaders have extensive experience in leading programmes, along with partnering with researchers to address health equity issues and improve health outcomes.

Measuring capacity to use evidence-based interventions in community-based organizations: A comprehensive, scoping review

Introduction:

Community-based organizations (CBOs) are well-positioned to incorporate research evidence, local expertise, and contextual factors to address health inequities. However, insufficient capacity limits use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in these settings. Capacity-building implementation strategies are popular, but a lack of standard models and validated measures hinders progress in the field. To advance the literature, we conducted a comprehensive scoping review.

Methods:

With a reference librarian, we executed a comprehensive search strategy of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, and EBSCO Global Health. We included articles that addressed implementation science, capacity-building, and CBOs. Of 5527 articles, 99 met our inclusion criteria, and we extracted data using a double-coding process

Results:

Of the 99 articles, 47% defined capacity explicitly, 31% defined it indirectly, and 21% did not define it. Common concepts in definitions were skills, knowledge/expertise, and resources. Of the 57 articles with quantitative analysis, 48 (82%) measured capacity, and 11 (23%) offered psychometric data for the capacity measures. Of the 99 studies, 40% focused exclusively on populations experiencing inequities and 22% included those populations to some extent. The bulk of the studies came from high-income countries.

Conclusions:

Implementation scientists should 1) be explicit about models and definitions of capacity and strategies for building capacity, 2) specify expected multi-level implementation outcomes, 3) develop and use validated measures for quantitative work, and 4) integrate equity considerations into the conceptualization and measurement of capacity-building efforts. With these refinements, we can ensure that the necessary supports reach CBO practitioners and critical partners for addressing health inequities.

Community engagement during COVID: A field report from seven CTSAs

INTRODUCTION

Prior to the COVID pandemic, many CTSAs employed face-to-face interactions to conduct most of their community engagement (CE) activities. During the COVID pandemic, such engagement had to be curtailed and alternatives needed to be formulated. In addition, Community Engaged Research (CEnR) teams refocused their efforts to address this public health crisis.

METHODS

To obtain a general understanding of how CTSAs have conducted CE and CEnR during the COVID pandemic, we invited seven CTSA CE leaders to provide brief field reports of their activities during the pandemic. This included how their approaches to CE and CEnR were modified during the COVID-19 pandemic and key lessons learned.

RESULTS

We found that despite numerous challenges, all seven CTSAs CE cores were able to successfully carry out CE and CEnR. We also found that the fundamental principles of meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement were of paramount importance during the pandemic. Through virtual approaches, all sites had considerable success in maintaining CE in during the COVID pandemic. They also leveraged existing bi-directional community partnerships to carry out meaningful and impactful research. This included both new COVID CEnR and also innovative approaches to sustain prior non-COVID research.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that academic-community partnerships must be fostered and sustained over the many years so that when such crises emerge, all partners can build on existing trust and mutual respect. The lessons learned and the new tools and approaches developed would be key in addressing any such future public health emergencies.