Lessons Learned from Three Models that Use Small Grants for Building Academic-Community Partnerships for Research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kegler MC
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5554883 | biostudies-other | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:This article presents a description of how an interdisciplinary network of academic researchers, community-based programs, parents, and state agencies have joined together to design, test, and scale a suite of innovative intervention strategies rooted in new knowledge about the biology of adversity. Through a process of cocreation, collective pilot testing, and the support of a measurement and evaluation hub, the Washington Innovation Cluster is using rapid cycle iterative learning to elucidate differential impacts of interventions designed to build child and caregiver capacities and address the developmental consequences of socioeconomic disadvantage. Key characteristics of the Innovation Cluster model are described and an example is presented of a video-coaching intervention that has been implemented, adapted, and evaluated through this distinctive collaborative process.
| S-EPMC5583016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A primary barrier to translation of clinical research discoveries into care delivery and population health is the lack of sustainable infrastructure bringing researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and communities together to reduce silos in knowledge and action. As National Institutes of Health's (NIH) mechanism to advance translational research, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) awardees are uniquely positioned to bridge this gap. Delivering on this promise requires sustained collaboration and alignment between research institutions and public health and healthcare programs and services. We describe the collaboration of seven CTSA hubs with city, county, and state healthcare and public health organizations striving to realize this vision together. Partnership representatives convened monthly to identify key components, common and unique themes, and barriers in academic-public collaborations. All partnerships aligned the activities of the CTSA programs with the needs of the city/county/state partners, by sharing resources, responding to real-time policy questions and training needs, promoting best practices, and advancing community-engaged research, and dissemination and implementation science to narrow the knowledge-to-practice gap. Barriers included competing priorities, differing timelines, bureaucratic hurdles, and unstable funding. Academic-public health/health system partnerships represent a unique and underutilized model with potential to enhance community and population health.
| S-EPMC7348007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Community engagement and rigorous science are necessary to address health issues. Increasingly, community health organizations are asked to partner in research. To strengthen such community organization-academic partnerships, increase research capacity in community organizations, and facilitate equitable partnered research, the Partners in Education Evaluation and Research (PEER) program was developed. The program implements an 18-month structured research curriculum for one mid-level employee of a health-focused community-based organization with an organizational mentor and a Case Western Reserve University faculty member as partners.The PEER program was developed and guided by a community-academic advisory committee and was designed to impact the research capacity of organizations through didactic modules and partnered research in the experiential phase. Active participation of community organizations and faculty during all phases of the program provided for bidirectional learning and understanding of the challenges of community-engaged health research. The pilot program evaluation used qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques, including experiences of the participants assessed through surveys, formal group and individual interviews, phone calls, and discussions. Statistical analysis of the change in fellows' pre-test and post-test survey scores were conducted using paired sample t tests. The small sample size is recognized by the authors as a limitation of the evaluation methods and would potentially be resolved by including more cohort data as the program progresses. Qualitative data were reviewed by two program staff using content and narrative analysis to identify themes, describe and assess group phenomena and determine program improvements.The objective of PEER is to create equitable partnerships between community organizations and academic partners to further research capacity in said organizations and develop mutually beneficial research partnerships between academia and community organizations.PEER demonstrates a commitment to successfully developing sustainable research capacity growth in community organizations, and improved partnered research with academic institutions.
| S-EPMC5573594 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionThe 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.MethodsSince 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.ResultsFrom 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.ConclusionsKeys 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.
| S-EPMC9879886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This column describes a process for adapting an evidence-based practice in community clinics in which researchers and community providers participated and the resulting framework for implementation of the practice-Replicating Effective Programs-Facilitation. A two-day meeting for the Recovery-Oriented Collaborative Care study was conducted to elicit input from more than 50 stakeholders, including community providers, health care administrators, and implementation researchers. The process illustrates an effective researcher-community partnership in which stakeholders worked together not only to adapt the evidence-based practice to the needs of the clinical settings but also to develop the implementation strategy.
| S-EPMC5721667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Community-academic research partnerships aim to build stakeholder trust in order to improve the reach and translation of health research, but there is limited empirical research regarding effective ways to build trust. This multisite study was launched to identify similarities and differences among stakeholders' perspectives of antecedents to trust in research partnerships. In 2013-2014, we conducted a mixed-methods concept mapping study with participants from three major stakeholder groups who identified and rated the importance of different antecedents of trust on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Study participants were community members ( n = 66), health care providers ( n = 38), and academic researchers ( n = 44). All stakeholder groups rated "authentic communication" and "reciprocal relationships" the highest in importance. Community members rated "communication/methodology to resolve problems" ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.58) significantly higher than academic researchers ( M = 3.87, SD = 0.67) and health care providers ( M = 3.89, SD = 0.62; p < .01) and had different perspectives regarding the importance of issues related to "sustainability." The importance of communication and relationships across stakeholders indicates the importance of colearning processes that involve the exchange of knowledge and skills. The differences uncovered suggest specific areas where attention and skill building may be needed to improve trust within partnerships. More research on how partnerships can improve communication specific to problem solving and sustainability is merited.
| S-EPMC6051524 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical research coordinators are increasingly tasked with a multitude of complex study activities critical to scientific rigor and participant safety, though more than half report not receiving appropriate training. To determine the reproducibility of an established clinical research workforce orientation program, collaborative partners across Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions seeded core principles and structure from Mayo Clinic's Clinical Research Orientation program within Penn State University and the University of Mississippi Medical Center from 2019 to 2021. Training concepts were established and tied to those domains deemed critical by the Joint Task Force for Clinical Trial Competency for the conduct of clinical research at the highest levels of safety and quality possible. Significant knowledge and confidence gains and high overall program satisfaction were reported across participants and partner sites, despite programs being required to pivot from traditional, in-person formats to entirely virtual platforms as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The successful standardization and translation of foundational clinical research training has important efficiency and efficacy implications for research enterprises across the USA.
| S-EPMC8601790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe effectiveness of mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach might be enhanced through an organized colorectal cancer screening program, yet published real-world experiences are limited. We synthesized the process of implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that used mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach in a large integrated academic-community practice.MethodsData from a pilot mailed fecal immunochemical test program were shared with healthcare system leadership, which inspired the creation of a cross-institutional organized colorectal cancer screening program. In partnership with a centralized population health team and primary care, we defined (1) the institutional approach to colorectal cancer screening, (2) the target population and method for screening, (3) the team responsible for implementation, (4) the healthcare team responsible for decisions and care, (5) a quality assurance structure, and (6) a method for identifying cancer occurrence.ResultsThe Fred Hutch/UW Medicine Population Health Colorectal Cancer Screening Program began in September 2021. The workflow for mailed fecal immunochemical test outreach included a mailed postcard, a MyChart message from the patient's primary care provider, a fecal immunochemical test kit with a letter signed by the primary care provider and program director, and up to 3 biweekly reminders. Patients without a colonoscopy 3 months after an abnormal fecal immunochemical test result received navigation through the program. In the first program year, we identified 9,719 patients eligible for outreach, and in an intention-to-treat analysis, 32% of patients completed colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy.ConclusionsReal-world experiences detailing how to implement organized colorectal cancer screening programs might increase adoption. In our experience, broadly disseminating pilot data, early institutional support, robust data management, and strong cross-departmental relationships were critical to successfully implementing a colorectal cancer screening program that benefits all patients.
| S-EPMC10864856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMutual learning and shared decision-making are key elements of Participatory Action Research (PAR), highlighting the important role of the facilitator to support this. This study aims to illustrate how a facilitator can contribute to successful PAR sessions based on the reflection of three PAR projects.MethodsParticipatory sessions took place with adolescents for 3-4 school years. After each session (n = 252 sessions across three projects), facilitators filled in a reflection form that assessed the group process and their facilitating role. Facilitators independently coded a selection of 135 reflection forms partly deductive and partly inductive based on core PAR principles derived from a pragmatic literature search.ResultsA well-prepared session - for example, including active and creative participatory methods and a clearly stated goal - contributed to efficiency and the necessary flexibility. Making agreements, making sure everyone is heard and taking 'fun-time' appeared important for creating and maintaining a safe, functional and positive atmosphere. Finally, facilitators needed to encourage co-researchers to take the lead and adapt to the group dynamics, to ensure ownership and shared decision-making.ConclusionIn-depth qualitative analyses of a standardized reflection form used in three different PAR projects resulted in various lessons to support facilitators in collaborating with co-researchers in PAR projects.
| S-EPMC11342652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Community involvement in HIV research has increased over recent years, enhancing community-academic partnerships. Several terms have been used to describe community participation in research. Clarification is needed to determine whether these terms are synonymous or actually describe different research processes. In addition, it remains unclear if the role that communities play in the actual research process follows the recommendations given in theoretical frameworks of community-academia research.The objective of this study is to review the existing terms and definitions regarding community-academic partnerships and assess how studies are implementing these in relation to conceptual definitions.A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed. Two reviewers independently assessed each article, applying the following inclusion criteria: the article must be published in English before 2013; it must provide an explicit definition and/or defining methodology for a term describing research with a community component; and it has to refer to HIV or AIDS, reproductive health and/or STDs. When disagreements about the relevance of an article emerged, a third reviewer was involved until concordance was reached. Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second. Qualitative data were analyzed using MaxQDA for content and thematic analyses while quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Community feedback on data analysis and presentation of results was also incorporated.In total, 246 articles were retrieved, 159 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The number of studies that included community participation in the field of HIV research increased between 1991 and 2012, and the terms used to describe these activities have changed, moving away from action research (AR) to participatory action research (PAR), community-based research (CBR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR), with the latter being the most commonly used term. While definitions of all terms had common characteristics (e.g. participation of community in research process), they varied with regard to the emphasis placed on these characteristics. The nature of community participation in reviewed studies differed considerably from that described in theoretical models.This study indicates the increase of participatory approaches in HIV research and underlines the need for clarification of terms and a framework providing orientation to community-academia partnerships.
| S-EPMC4309828 | biostudies-other