Erratum: Building the foundation for equitable and inclusive research: Seed grant programs to facilitate development of diverse CBPR community-academic research partnerships - CORRIGENDUM

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/cts.2022.495.].

Developing relevant assessments of community-engaged research partnerships: A community-based participatory approach to evaluating clinical and health research study teams

Background/Objective

In 2017, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) and community partners in Flint, Michigan collaborated to launch a research funding program and evaluate the dynamics of those research partnerships receiving funding. While validated assessments for community-engaged research (CEnR) partnerships were available, the study team found none sufficiently relevant to conducting CEnR in the context of the work. MICHR faculty and staff along with community partners living and working in Flint used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to develop and administer a locally relevant assessment of CEnR partnerships that were active in Flint in 2019 and 2021.

Methods

Surveys were administered each year to over a dozen partnerships funded by MICHR to evaluate how community and academic partners assessed the dynamics and impact of their study teams over time.

Results

The results suggest that partners believed that their partnerships were engaging and highly impactful. Although many substantive differences between community and academic partners' perceptions over time were identified, the most notable regarded the financial management of the partnerships.

Conclusion

This work contributes to the field of translational science by evaluating how the financial management of community-engaged health research partnerships in a locally relevant context of Flint can be associated with these teams' scientific productivity and impact with national implications for CEnR. This work presents evaluation methods which can be used by clinical and translational research centers that strive to implement and measure their use of CBPR approaches.

Parental Perspectives Regarding the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Their Children

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought profound changes to the health of families worldwide. Yet, there is limited research regarding its impact on children. The pandemic may exacerbate factors associated with excess weight, which is particularly concerning due to the potential association between excess weight and severity of COVID-19 infection. This study investigates parental perspectives of changes in fruit/vegetable (FV) intake, processed food (PF) intake, outdoor playtime (OP), physical activity (PA) levels, and recreational screen time (RST) among children living in Michigan during the pandemic. Methods: The study team and community partners developed and distributed a survey using snowball sampling to reach families living largely in Central and Southeastern Michigan. Nonlinear mixed-effects proportional odds models were used to examine associations between child weight status along with demographic/household factors and changes in five weight-related behaviors. Results: Parents (n = 1313; representing 2469 children) reported a decrease in OP, FV, and PA levels, while there was an increase in RST and PF intake among their children. Household income was protective against a decrease in OP, PA, and FV but was associated with increased RST. Children's weight status was associated with decreased FV. Age was negatively associated with OP and PA, and positively associated with RST. Conclusions: These findings suggest an adverse influence of the pandemic on weight-related behaviors, particularly among adolescents in families with lower incomes and those with excess weight. Further work is needed to measure any impact on BMI trajectory and to identify interventions to reverse negative effects.

Building the foundation for equitable and inclusive research: Seed grant programs to facilitate development of diverse CBPR community-academic research partnerships

Introduction

The effectiveness of community-based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships to address health inequities is well documented. CBPR integrates knowledge and perspectives of diverse communities throughout the research process, following principles that emphasize trust, power sharing, co-learning, and mutual benefits. However, institutions and funders seldom provide the time and resources needed for the critical stage of equitable partnership formation and development.

Methods

Since 2011, the Detroit Urban Research Center, collaborating with other entities, has promoted the development of new community-academic research partnerships through two grant programs that combine seed funding with capacity building support from community and academic instructors/mentors experienced in CBPR. Process and outcomes were evaluated using mixed methods.

Results

From 2011 to 2021, 50 partnerships received grants ranging from $2,500 to $30,000, totaling $605,000. Outcomes included equitable partnership infrastructure and processes, innovative pilot research, translation of findings to interventions and policy change, dissemination to multiple audiences, new proposals and projects, and sustained community-academic research partnerships. All partnerships continued beyond the program; over half secured additional funding.

Conclusions

Keys to success included participation as community-academic teams, dedicated time for partnership/relationship development, workshops to develop equity-based skills, relationships, and projects, expert community-academic instructor guidance, and connection to additional resources. Findings demonstrate that small amounts of seed funding for newly forming community-academic partnerships, paired with capacity building support, can provide essential time and resources needed to develop diverse, inclusive, equity-focused CBPR partnerships. Building such support into funding initiatives and through academic institutions can enhance impact and sustainability of translational research toward advancing health equity.

Improving community participation in clinical and translational research: CTSA Sentinel Network proof of concept study

BACKGROUND

Research participation by members of racial or ethnic minority groups continues to be less than optimum resulting in difficulties to generalization of research findings. Community-engaged research that relies on a community health worker (CHW) model has been found effective in building trust in the community, thereby motivating people to participate in health research. The Sentinel Network study aimed at testing the feasibility of utilizing the CHW model to link community members to appropriate health research studies at each of the research sites.

METHODS

The study was conducted at six Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions (N = 2371) across the country; 733 (30.9%) of the participants were from the University of Florida, 525 (22.0%) were from Washington University in St. Louis, 421 (17.8%) were from the University of California, Davis, 288 (12.1%) were from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 250 (10.5%) were from Rochester, and 154 (6.5%) from Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Trained CHWs from each of these sites conducted regular community outreach where they administered a Health Needs Assessment, provided medical and social referrals, and linked to eligible research studies at each of those sites. A 30-day follow-up assessment was developed to track utilization of services satisfaction with the services and research study participation.

RESULTS

A large majority of people, especially African Americans, expressed willingness to participate in research studies. The top two health concerns reported by participants were hypertension and diabetes.

CONCLUSION

Findings on the rate of navigation and enrollment in research from this study indicate the effectiveness of a hybrid CHW service and research model of directly engaging community members to encourage people to participate in research.

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.

Piloting a nationally disseminated, interactive human subjects protection program for community partners: design, content, and evaluation

Funders, institutions, and research organizations are increasingly recognizing the need for human subjects protections training programs for those engaged in academic research. Current programs tend to be online and directed toward an audience of academic researchers. Research teams now include many nonacademic members, such as community partners, who are less likely to respond to either the method or the content of current online trainings. A team at the CTSA-supported Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research at the University of Michigan developed a pilot human subjects protection training program for community partners that is both locally implemented and adaptable to local contexts, yet nationally consistent and deliverable from a central administrative source. Here, the developers and the analysts of this program discuss its development, its content, and the results of its evaluation.

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

In 2007, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR) at the University of Michigan received a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Within MICHR, the Community Engagement (CE) program supports partnership efforts between researchers, practitioners, and community-based organizations in specific focal communities throughout Michigan. A key component of the CE program is the Community Engagement Coordinating Council, a group that provides input and guidance on program priorities, strategic planning, and reviews pilot funding proposals for community-academic partnerships. This paper will describe a unique MICHR pilot funding mechanism for Community-University Research Partnerships (CURES) with an emphasis on the ways that community partners are involved in the review process, as well as the benefits, challenges, and insights gained over 5 years of pilot review. There is a growing need for community involvement and expertise in review of funding proposals for community-engaged research at both institutional and federal levels. The CURES pilot review process is one example of an institutional effort to engage community partners in university funding decisions and has demonstrated clear benefit toward accomplishing the aims of the CTSA.