Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Carter-Edwards L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7996237 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe present review aimed to systematically identify and classify barriers and facilitators of conducting research with a team science approach.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest databases were searched for primary research studies conducted using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Studies examining barriers and facilitators of research with a team science approach were included in search. Two independent reviewers screened the texts, extracted and coded the data. Quality assessment was performed for all 35 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators were categorized within Human, Organization, and Technology model.ResultsA total of 35 studies from 9,381 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 42 barriers and 148 facilitators were identified. Human barriers were characteristics of the researchers, teaming skills, and time. We consider Human facilitators across nine sub-themes as follows: characteristics of the researchers, roles, goals, communication, trust, conflict, disciplinary distances, academic rank, and collaboration experience. The barriers related to organization were institutional policies, team science integration, and funding. Organizational facilitators were as follows: team science skills training, institutional policies, and evaluation. Facilitators in the field of technology included virtual readiness and data management, and the technology barriers were complexity of techniques and privacy issues.ConclusionsWe identified major barriers and facilitators for conducting research with team science approach. The findings have important connotations for ongoing and future implementation of this intervention strategy in research. The analysis of this review provides evidence to inform policy-makers, funding providers, researchers, and students on the existing barriers and facilitators of team science research.Trial registrationThis review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021278704).

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about patient engagement in the context of large teams or networks. Quantitative data from a larger sample of CHILD-BRIGHT Network members suggest that patient engagement was beneficial and meaningful. To extend our understanding of the barriers, facilitators, and impacts identified by patient-partners and researchers, we conducted this qualitative study.MethodsParticipants completed semi-structured interviews and were recruited from the CHILD-BRIGHT Research Network. A patient-oriented research (POR) approach informed by the SPOR Framework guided the study. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2-SF) was used to report on involvement of patient-partners. The data were analyzed using a qualitative, content analysis approach.ResultsTwenty-five CHILD-BRIGHT Network members (48% patient-partners, 52% researchers) were interviewed on their engagement experiences in the Network's research projects and in network-wide activities. At the research project level, patient-partners and researchers reported similar barriers and facilitators to engagement. Barriers included communication challenges, factors specific to patient-partners, difficulty maintaining engagement over time, and difficulty achieving genuine collaboration. Facilitators included communication (e.g., open communication), factors specific to patient-partners (e.g., motivation), and factors such as respect and trust. At the Network level, patient-partners and researchers indicated that time constraints and asking too much of patient-partners were barriers to engagement. Both patient-partners and researchers indicated that communication (e.g., regular contacts) facilitated their engagement in the Network. Patient-partners also reported that researchers' characteristics (e.g., openness to feedback) and having a role within the Network facilitated their engagement. Researchers related that providing a variety of activities and establishing meaningful collaborations served as facilitators. In terms of impacts, study participants indicated that POR allowed for: (1) projects to be better aligned with patient-partners' priorities, (2) collaboration among researchers, patient-partners and families, (3) knowledge translation informed by patient-partner input, and (4) learning opportunities.ConclusionOur findings provide evidence of the positive impacts of patient engagement and highlight factors that are important to consider in supporting engagement in large research teams or networks. Based on these findings and in collaboration with patient-partners, we have identified strategies for enhancing authentic engagement of patient-partners in these contexts.

Project description:On a global scale, implementation science has developed considerably as a discipline in recent years. In German-speaking countries, the field has been gaining significance as well, but respective efforts in building capacity and advancing the research infrastructure are still rare. The present study investigates barriers and facilitators for conducting implementation science in German-speaking countries with the goal of formulating recommendations for creating a more supportive research infrastructure. We conducted an interview study with nine well-established implementation researchers affiliated with universities in Austria, Germany, or Switzerland. The interviews were held via Zoom or phone in November and December 2020, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. Barriers that relate to characteristics of the discipline were difficulties in building a common understanding of the field and the complexity of implementation research projects. Although supportive scientific networks were important facilitators, interviewees mentioned challenges in connecting with likeminded researchers. A further barrier was the lack of opportunities for education and training in implementation science, especially in the German language. Also, participants reported a missing readiness in academia for establishing implementation science that should be addressed by advocacy of the discipline toward academic decision makers. Moreover, since most national funding agencies prioritize basic research over applied research, some interviewees named flexibility in handling research funds as a facilitator for implementation research. The results inform an agenda for promoting implementation science in German-speaking countries and can be beneficial to other countries that are currently advancing their implementation research capacity and infrastructure.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43477-022-00046-3.