Researcher perspectives on embedding community stakeholders in T1-T2 research: A potential new model for full-spectrum translational research

A framework for building comprehensive cancer center's capacity for bidirectional engagement

PURPOSE

Community engagement has benefits for cancer centers' work and for its researchers. This study examined the experiences and perceptions of community engagement by members of the Case Comprehensive Cancer Center (Case CCC) to create and implement a framework to meet the needs of the entire cancer center.

METHODS

This study included three phases: 1) Semi-structured interviews with 12 researchers from a basic science program to identify needs and suggestions for the support of community engagement; 2) Preliminary interview results informed the development of a survey of 86 cancer center members' about their awareness of and readiness to integrate community outreach and engagement into their research; and 3) The Case CCC Office of Community Outreach and Engagement reviewed the results from phases 1 and 2 to develop and then utilize a framework of engagement opportunities.

RESULTS

In the interviews and surveys, cancer center members recognized the importance of community engagement and expressed an interest in participating in COE-organized opportunities for bidirectional engagement. While participation barriers include communication issues, limited awareness of opportunities, and competing priorities, members were open to learning new skills, changing approaches, and utilizing services to facilitate engagement. The framework outlines engagement opportunities ranging from high touch, low reach to low touch, and high reach and was used to develop specific services.

CONCLUSION

This study identified varying needs around community engagement using an approach aimed at understanding the perspectives of a community of scientists. Implementing the framework enables reaching scientists in different ways and facilitates scientists' recognition of and engagement with opportunities.

Development of strategies for community engaged research dissemination by basic scientists: a case study

As depicted in the translational research continuum, dissemination of research findings to past research participants and the community-at-large is integral to improving health outcomes. Blocks in translation exist in which poor dissemination is a major contributor. Limited progress has been made on how to engage basic scientists at T1 and T2 phases to meaningfully disseminate study findings to community. Our objective is to report on 4 cases of community engaged research dissemination activities among 3 basic scientists (ie, a cancer biologist, a biochemist, and a molecular biologist.): a townhall, a radio listening session, a community newsletter, and a Facebook Live segment. The Meharry Community Engagement Core dissemination team designed these activities using community informed processes. To plan and conduct these activities, a basic scientist is partnered with a community engaged researcher and a community-based organization to create a dissemination product which can be understood and potentially used by past research participants and the community-at-large. We share reflections from basic scientists, community organizations, and event participants. Finally, we provide competencies, informed by basic scientists, needed to engage in effective, community-engaged research dissemination. The activities, reflections, and competencies can be used by basic scientists and academic institutions as models to guide their community engaged research dissemination activities. This work supports the goal to bridge the translational research gap.

Integrating dissemination and implementation sciences within Clinical and Translational Science Award programs to advance translational research: Recommendations to national and local leaders

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) has defined translation as the process of turning observations into interventions that are adopted, sustained, and improve health. Translation must attend to research and community systems and context at multiple levels, and to key stakeholders. Dissemination and implementation (D&I) sciences are informed by an understanding of the critical role of people and systems in disseminating, adopting, and sustaining innovations within real-world settings. Thus, the D&I sciences provides a set of principles that can guide the translational work of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs from basic research to public health. In this special communication, our cross-domain working group of the CTSA consortium, comprised of experts in methods and processes, workforce development, evaluation, stakeholder engagement, and D&I sciences, share a vision of how CTSAs can enhance translation across the translational spectrum through the integration of D&I sciences into the critical areas of methods and processes, workforce development, and evaluation. We propose a set of recommendations for NCATS national and local leaders that are intended to move D&I sciences out of a position of unfamiliarity and ancillary value and into the core identity of who CTSAs are, how they think, and what they do, to advance translation and health.

Partnering patients, caregivers, and basic scientists: an engagement model that fosters patient- and family-centered research culture

Traditionally, basic scientists have not been as engaged in the translational continuum when it comes to engagement with patients, caregivers, and other community stakeholders. In order to address this discrepancy, a multi-disciplinary team at Moffitt Cancer Center conceived of and enacted the Patient-Researcher Forum (PRF) to promote a community-engaged research approach through communication, compassion, and bi-directional research insight for both patients/caregivers and researchers. We outline the structure and implementation of the PRF, its participants, and qualitative and quantitative results across 14 sessions. PRF sessions were conducted between July 2018 and October 2019 and included 29 patients/caregivers and close to 200 researcher/staff participants; post participation survey response rates assessing the PRF experience were 27.6% (patients/caregivers) and 60.3% (researchers) on average. Research staff overwhelmingly reported that the PRF was beneficial, citing that it helped them gain new patient-centered perspectives and helped them practice communicating research to lay audiences. Patients/caregivers also reported that the PRF was valuable, indicating that they gained a better understanding of research and that they developed a personal connection with researchers. Our PRF model may provide a strategy for improving basic scientist communication, ethics, and understanding of research impacts on the populations they wish to serve. This innovative model provides a much-needed direct connection between basic scientists and patients/caregivers which creates a 2-way learning platform that fosters understanding and research ideas in the spirit of community-engaged research.