A community-informed recruitment plan template to increase recruitment of racial and ethnic groups historically excluded and underrepresented in clinical research

INTRODUCTION

Engaging communities in research planning and implementation can enhance recruitment and retention (R&R) of racial and ethnic groups historically excluded and underrepresented in clinical research; however, most studies do not use community-informed approaches. This paper describes the formative research process used to design a Community-Informed Recruitment Plan Template for racial and ethnic groups historically excluded and underrepresented in clinical research.

METHODS

Using an existing R&R template as a starting point, we iteratively developed and refined the community-informed template through a 3-phase process to achieve cultural-appropriateness. Phase 1 included a literature review, 34 community engagement (CE) studios to review recommendations, community advisory board (CAB) review, and survey data from minority recruitment experts. Phase 2 involved integration of content into existing R&R template. Phase 3 was a final review and revision using input of the CAB and researchers' panel. Survey data collected in Phase 1 were analyzed using descriptives (i.e., frequencies and percentages). Open-ended survey responses were analyzed using inductive, qualitative thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The final 8-section template can help develop effective grant or proposal language where study R&R plans are requested. They include: 1) Recruitment Strategy; 2) A Stakeholder Communication Plan; 3) Evidence of Recruitment Feasibility; 4) Recruitment and Retention Team; 5) Recruitment and Retention Methods; 6) Recruitment and Retention Timeline; 7) Evaluation; and 8) Budget.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating multiple perspectives into this formative research process enhances the cultural appropriateness of this community-informed R&R template to help research teams achieve R&R goals for individuals historically excluded and underrepresented in clinical research.

A multiperspective on the broad dissemination of research findings to past research participants and the community-at-large

Dissemination of research findings to past research participants and the community-at-large is a critical element to improving health outcomes, yet it is often overlooked by researchers. Few studies have explored how to provide study findings to the community, and no studies have investigated how community members can be involved in this process. This study explored views on the broad dissemination of research findings to community members and the role of the community in the dissemination process. We conducted a comparative analysis from the perspective of researchers, community members, and program officers (POs) from national health research funding agencies. Semistructured interviews were conducted with community members (African American, N = 10; Latino, N = 10), academic researchers (N = 10), and POs (N = 5). Thematic analysis was utilized in which codes and themes were created. One cross-cutting theme was identified, Views on Disseminating Research Findings to Communities. There were three additional themes identified among community members, five among researchers, and four among POs. All groups perceived the value of dissemination to communities as meaningful and ethical. Groups differed in their perceptions of prioritization of dissemination audiences. This study highlighted consensus on the value of broad dissemination to the community-at-large and identified areas of insufficiency in the translational research continuum that could be expanded or improved to ensure targeted groups receive the intended benefits of positive research findings. The long-term benefit of disseminating findings to the community-at-large is increased acceptability of interventions and reduced mistrust in research and researchers.

Design and implementation of a massive open online course on enhancing the recruitment of minorities in clinical trials - Faster Together

Background

Racial and ethnic minorities are often underrepresented in clinical trials, threatening the generalizability of trial results. Several factors may contribute to underrepresentation of minorities in clinical trials, including lack of training for researchers and staff on the importance of diversity in clinical trials and effective strategies for recruiting and retaining minority populations.

Methods

Applying community engaged research principles, we developed a massive open online course (MOOC) to help research team members develop knowledge and skills to enhance the recruitment of minorities in clinical trials. A transdisciplinary working group, consisting of clinical researchers, community engagement specialists, minority clinical trial recruitment and retention educators and specialists, and knowledge management information scientists, was formed to develop an evidence-based curriculum. Feedback from the Recruitment Innovation Center Community Advisory Board was incorporated to help finalize the curriculum. The course was implemented in Coursera, an online learning platform offering MOOCs. A bootstrap paired sample t-test was used to compare pre- and post-assessments of knowledge, attitudes, and intentions as it relates to minority recruitment.

Results

The final course, entitled Faster Together, was divided into eight 1-h modules. Each module included video presentations, reading assignments, and quizzes. After 10 months, 382 individuals enrolled in the course, 105 participants completed the pre-test, and 14 participants completed the post-test. Participants’ knowledge scores were higher with an increase in the mean number of correct answers from 15.4 (95% CI:12.1–18.7) on the pre-test to 18.7 (95% CI:17.42–20.2) on the post-test. All post-test respondents (n = 14) indicated that the course improved their professional knowledge, and 71.4% of respondents indicated that they were very likely to make changes to their recruitment practices.

Conclusions

Faster Together, a massive open online course, is an acceptable, accessible approach to educating research teams on minority recruitment in clinical trials. Preliminary evidence indicates the course increased knowledge on how to recruit minorities into clinical trials and could promote change in their recruitment practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01240-x.

Advancing Community-Engaged Research through Partnership Development: Overcoming Challenges Voiced by Community-Academic Partners

BACKGROUND

Community-engaged research (CEnR) is a promising approach to translate research into practice. The Meharry-Vanderbilt Community Engaged Research Core (CERC) was established to support academic-community partnerships with the goal of improving community health. A successful mini-grant program has been used to foster academic community partnerships. We describe the process of developing, implementing, and sustaining a grant program and discuss how the program has informed our CEnR activities.

METHODS

Grant applications are solicited twice per year. Submission guidelines align with typical procedures. However, considerable guidance and support for applicants are provided. If necessary. Grant funds are awarded directly to the community partner.

RESULTS

The CERC has awarded nearly $250,000 to support academic-community research partnerships. Both community and academic partners reported that the opportunity was beneficial and enriched their work.

CONCLUSIONS

Resources provided by our mini-grant program enhance the development and sustainability of CEnR partnerships.

Engagement of community stakeholders to develop a framework to guide research dissemination to communities

BACKGROUND

Dissemination of research findings to past study participants and the community-at-large is important. Yet, a standardized process for research dissemination is needed to report results to the community.

OBJECTIVE

We developed a framework and strategies to guide community-academic partnerships in community-targeted, dissemination efforts.

METHODS

From 2017 to 2019, a community-academic partnership was formed in Nashville, Tennessee, and iteratively developed a framework and strategies for research dissemination using cognitive interviews. A deductive, constant comparative analysis was conducted on interview responses to examine framework and strategy content. Feedback was used to finalize the framework and strategies for the evaluation. Using existing data, the framework's utility was evaluated in seven town hall meetings (n = 117). Bivariate analyses determined its effect on community members' trust and willingness to participate in research using pre- and post-surveys. Evaluation results were used to finalize the framework.

RESULTS

The Community-Engaged Research Dissemination (CERD) framework has two phases. Phase one is a preliminary planning phase with two steps, and phase two is the four-step dissemination process. There are five standards to be upheld conducting these phases. We provide competencies for each component. Three feasible, culturally adapted strategies were developed as exemplars to disseminate research findings. Using pre- and post-surveys for intervention evaluation, there was a significant difference in trust in medical research and researchers (P = .006) and willingness to participate in research (P = .013).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The CERD framework can potentially standardize the process and compare the effect of dissemination efforts on the community's trust and willingness to participate in research.

Collaboration and Context in the Design of Community-Engaged Research Training

Collaboration between academic researchers and community members, clinicians, and organizations is valued at all levels of the program development process in community-engaged health research (CEnR). This descriptive study examined a convenience sample of 30 projects addressing training in CEnR methods and strategies within the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortium. Projects were selected from among posters presented at an annual community engagement conference over a 3-year period. Study goals were to learn more about how community participation in the design process affected selection of training topics, how distinct community settings influenced the selection of training formats, and the role of evaluation in preparing training participants to pursue future health research programming. Results indicated (1) a modest increase in training topics that reflected community health priorities as a result of community (as well as academic) participation at the program design stage, (2) a wide range of community-based settings for CEnR training programs, and (3) the majority of respondents conducted evaluations, which led in turn to revisions in the curricula for future training sessions. Practice and research implications are that the collaboration displayed by academic community teams around CEnR training should be traced to see if this participatory practice transfers to the design of health promotion programs. Second, collaborative training design tenets, community formats and settings, and evaluation strategies should be disseminated throughout the CTSA network and beyond. Third, common evaluative metrics and indicators of success for CEnR training programs should be identified across CTSA institutions.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Dual-Track Research Training Program for Community Members and Community-Based Organizations

BACKGROUND

It is a public health priority to increase community research participation to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities. There is a need for effective research training programs that build community stakeholders' capacity to engage as equitable partners.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the collaborative process of implementing and evaluating a dual-track community research training program-Meharry Vanderbilt Community Engaged Research Core-Community Research Training Program (MVC-CRT) Program-and present participant evaluations.

METHODS

The MVC-CRT is a six-session community-based organization (CBO) curriculum and a three-session community member (CM) curriculum, based on needs identified by various community stakeholders, that was piloted in 2016. Immediately post-training, an outcome evaluation (surveys) was used to measure trainees' confidence relative to 30 learning objectives for the combined training sessions (e.g., Introduction to research), satisfaction in preparing them for research roles, and impact on research activities (e.g., building sustainable partnerships). 2 and 3 months after training, a process evaluation (focus groups) was used to assess each session's flow, materials, group discussions, and facilitators.

RESULTS

Trainees' immediate post-training confidence increased or remained the same across 26 of 30 learning objectives. Two to 3 months after training, trainees reported sustained confidence, perceived increased knowledge, and increased intentions to engage in or improve research activities. All participants were satisfied with the program and felt better prepared for research roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored community research training may result in positive outcomes that can ultimately increase community capacity to be equitable partners in research in support of efforts to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities.

Community advisory boards: Experiences and common practices of clinical and translational science award programs

Community advisory boards (CABs) are a valuable strategy for engaging and partnering with communities in research. Eighty-nine percent of Clinical and Translational Science Awardees (CTSA) responding to a 2011 survey reported having a CAB. CTSAs' experiences with CABs are valuable for informing future practice. This study was conducted to describe common CAB implementation practices among CTSAs; document perceived benefits, challenges, and contributions; and examine their progress toward desirable outcomes. A cross-CTSA collaborative team collected survey data from respondents representing academic and/or community members affiliated with CTSAs with CABs. Data representing 44 CTSAs with CABs were analyzed using descriptive statistics. A majority of respondents reported practices reflecting respect for CAB members' expertise and input such as compensation (75%), advisory purview beyond their CTSA's Community Engagement program (88%), and influence over CAB operations. Three-quarters provide members with orientation and training on roles and responsibilities and 89% reported evaluating their CAB. Almost all respondents indicated their CTSA incorporates the feedback of their CABs to some degree; over half do so a lot or completely. This study profiles practices that inform CTSAs implementing a CAB and provide an evaluative benchmark for those with existing CABs.

Development and validation of the Person-Centeredness of Research Scale

AIM

Person-centeredness shifts the focus of healthcare and research to the needs and priorities of patients and communities, and may improve health outcomes. There are no instruments available, however, with which we can assess the degree to which research is indeed person-centered. Our aim was to develop and validate a quantitative instrument to rate person-centeredness of research.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Scale development and validation entailed a multistep approach that led to the seven-item Person Centeredness of Research Scale (PCoR Scale) that uses a 5-point Likert rating scale. The scale was validated using ratings of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research abstracts or abstracts submitted to a translational science meeting.

RESULTS

Psychometric properties of the PCoR Scale showed high internal consistency (α = 0.96). All seven items were highly correlated with the total score (rs range from 0.63 to 0.90). An exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that all of the items loaded on a single factor, explaining 80% of the variance. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research abstracts had a mean PCoR Scale score of 6.52 (±8.01) that was significantly higher than the abstracts submitted to the translational science meeting (-2.56 (±9.18); t = 8.09; p < 0.0001). Inter-rater reliability in the validation of the revised instrument was high (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC]_(group1) = 0.89; ICC_(group2) = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

This brief, quantitative rating scale is the first to assess the main constructs that describe person-centeredness of research products. The PCoR Scale can be used to assess person-centeredness in research products; for example, by funders evaluating proposals, data networks evaluating data requests or researchers evaluating their research designs.

An exploratory study of Clinical and Translational Science Award community-engaged research training programs

BACKGROUND

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) institutions are increasing development of training programs in community-engaged research (CEnR) to support translational science.

METHODS

This study sampled posters at CTSA national meetings to identify CEnR training approaches, topics, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Qualitative analysis of 30 posters revealed training topics and outcomes focused primarily on CEnR capacity building, overcoming barriers, systems change, and sustainability.

CONCLUSION

Further research should focus on development and results of CTSA CEnR training program metrics.

Needs, Priorities, and Recommendations for Engaging Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Research: A Community Perspective

Engaging underrepresented groups in outcomes research is a public health priority for reducing health and health care disparities; yet, engaging these groups is challenging. Failure to involve these underrepresented populations in research further exacerbates these disparities. This article presents the health and research priorities of diverse groups of underrepresented populations in biomedical research, their concerns for participating in research, and strategies to engage them in their healthcare and research studies. Eleven community listening sessions, ranging from 7 to 13 community members each (N = 117), representing racial/ethnic minority, economically disadvantaged (e.g., uninsured), and hearing impaired communities. We used an inductive, qualitative content analysis approach to analyze the data for emerging themes. We identified the following themes: Uncertainties of underrepresented populations regarding research participation; Ineffective communication about research opportunities and research findings; Research on primary care and prevention are priorities for underrepresented populations in research; and Research teams need training in cultural competence and humility. Underrepresented groups provided research priorities, concerns, and strategies to engage them in their healthcare and in research studies. Findings from this study could facilitate improvement of research participation among underrepresented groups, ultimately reducing health disparities and improving quality of life among groups commonly omitted from research recruitment and participation.

Community-Engaged Strategies to Promote Relevance of Research Capacity-Building Efforts Targeting Community Organizations

OBJECTIVE

The study goal is to highlight strategies for promoting relevance of research capacity-building efforts targeting community organizations (CO)s.

METHODS

Two community partners, representing two COs, were invited to participate in CO research development trainings, Community Research Forums (Forum)s. Their contributions were documented via Forum document review. Forum participants, representatives from other COs, completed post-Forum surveys to identify additional training needs and rate Forum impact relative to their training expectations. A content-based analysis and descriptive statistics were used to summarize needs assessment- and impact-related survey responses, respectively.

RESULTS

Community partners were involved in eight Forum-related activities including marketing (planning), facilitation (implementation), and manuscript coauthorship (dissemination). Eighty-one individuals, representing 55 COs, attended the Forums. Needs assessment responses revealed a desire for additional assistance with existing Forum topics (e.g., defining research priorities) and a need for new ones (e.g., promoting organizational buy in for research). Ninety-one percent of participants agreed that the Forum demonstrated the value of research to COs and how to create a research agenda.

CONCLUSIONS

Including community partners in all Forum phases ensured that CO perspectives were integrated throughout. Post-Forum needs and impact assessment results will help in tailoring, where needed, future training topics and strategies, respectively.