scholarly journals Enhancing translational researchers’ ability to collaborate with community stakeholders: Lessons from the Community Engagement Studio

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 201-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yvonne A. Joosten ◽  
Tiffany L. Israel ◽  
Amy Head ◽  
Yolanda Vaughn ◽  
Victoria Villalta Gil ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Community Members ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Community Stakeholders ◽  
Recruitment Challenges ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

Community engagement is considered essential to effectively translate research into practice and is increasingly recognized as a key to successful clinical trial recruitment. Challenges to engaging community stakeholders in research persist and new methods are needed to facilitate meaningful stakeholder involvement. The Community Engagement Studio (CE Studio), a consultative model, has been used at every stage of the research process. Best practices drawn from the model could inform other methods of engagement. Using a mixed-methods approach that included evaluation surveys, impact surveys and interviews, we assessed the CE Studio program. We analyzed data from 75 CE Studios; 65 researchers and 591 community members completed surveys and 10 researchers completed interviews. Surveys indicate that 100% of researchers would request a CE Studio in the future, and 99.3% of community members would participate in a CE Studio again. We identified 6 practices to enhance community engagement in clinical and translational research: early input, researcher coaching, researcher humility, balancing power, neutral facilitator, and preparation of community stakeholders. These best practices may enhance the quality of existing community engagement approaches and improve the effectiveness of translational researchers’ efforts to engage community stakeholders in their work.

scholarly journals 2215 The value of storytelling in community stakeholder feedback for clinical and translational research

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 75-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurie L. Novak ◽  
Sheba George ◽  
Kenneth Wallston ◽  
Yolanda Vaughn ◽  
Tiffany Israel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Research Priorities ◽  
Receiver Functions ◽  
The Body ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Stakeholder ◽  
Community Stakeholders ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Community stakeholder engagement along the translational spectrum of biomedical research has been identified as a potentially crucial factor for encouraging participation among underrepresented groups, improving research relevance, and adoption of evidence into practice. Although we have developed various methods to improve communication between researchers and community stakeholders, we have not focused much attention on the manner by which community stakeholders choose to communicate with researchers in scientific feedback settings. In our PCORI funded study using Community Engagement Studios to elicit feedback on research from community stakeholders, we found that feedback from participants was frequently provided in the form of stories. This presentation aims to describe these narratives, examine their function in the feedback process and consider how a focus on these narratives enhances our understanding of community engagement for clinical and translational research. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The present study comes from a larger randomized, controlled methodological study. We randomized 20 investigators seeking input on their research to either a Community Engagement Studio (a panel of community members or patients) or a Translational Studio (a panel of researchers). Any faculty member or research trainee at Vanderbilt University or Meharry Medical College was eligible to participate. Each Studio panel was convened to provide project-specific input. The 153 stakeholders who participated in CE Studios were patients, caregivers, or patient advocates identified by health status, health condition, or demographic variables based on the project-based needs of the 20 researchers randomized in this project. Stakeholders include individuals with diabetes, heart failure, Parkinson’s disease, sickle cell disease, and ICU survivors. All stakeholders had experience as a partner or consultant on a research project or through serving on a research advisory board or committee. All Studios were recorded and transcribed, and experienced qualitative researchers analyzed the data. For this paper, we focus on the narrative feedback in the form of stories elicited in the CE Studios. Using qualitative methods, we coded the transcripts from the 20 CE Studios to identify stories and their functions in the feedback. Stories were defined as narratives with (a) at least one actor (b) action that unfolds over time, and (c) a realization, destination, or conflict resolution (i.e., a point of the story). For example, “I refilled my mother’s pillbox on Sunday and on Friday I found the pillbox still completely full” would be a story, however, “my mother doesn’t take her meds correctly” would not. We coded the stories for how they facilitated communication in the Studio using an open-coding style, that is we did not apply a specific theoretical framework of interaction or communication. It was possible for any given story to have more than one code applied to it; that is they were not classified in a mutually exclusive way. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: We found 5 major functions of stories in the Studios. Basic sender-receiver functions were noted, including responding to queries and seeking mutual understanding. The other functions served to move or add to the conversation, including adding expansion and depth, characterizing abstract concepts, and providing context, with the latter being the most frequent function of stories. Speakers provided context in a wide variety of dimensions, ranging from the context of the body to spatial and institutional contexts. These stories served to help others understand the speakers’ lived experiences. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: We often engage community members in research for their expertise with regards to their lived experiences as patients or community members, and for their experiences of healthcare and social determinants of health in particular community contexts. Yet we may expect them to share their expertise in a manner that is consistent with a scientific, explanatory framing and language. However, we know there is a difference in the way that professional researchers discuss research Versus how community members discuss research. In our PCORI study, we found that our Community Studio participants relied on storytelling as an important means to communicate their lived experiences. Their stories were often key to communicating the complex contexts of their experiences. We focus on examining these narrative practices and their functions in how community members engaged with and provided advice to researchers. This understanding may help us in: (1) Characterizing the contexts, processes, and meanings associated with community stakeholder experiences that are otherwise difficult to access. (2) Identifying community priorities relevant to research that are embedded in community narratives to better align research priorities with community needs and to improve patient outcomes. (3) Collecting insights for improving the design of community engagement activities in research. (4) Harnessing more fully the potential of community engagement in research.

scholarly journals Trends and Developments in Bioinformatics in 2010: Prospects and Perspectives

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 146-155
Author(s):  
A. V. Alekseyenko ◽  
Y. Aphinyanaphongs ◽  
S. Brown ◽  
D. Fenyo ◽  
L. Fu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Open Problems ◽  
The Past ◽  
New Methods ◽  
Methods Development ◽  
Long Term Trends ◽  
To Come ◽  
Generation Sequencing

SummaryTo survey major developments and trends in the field of Bioinformatics in 2010 and their relationships to those of previous years, with emphasis on long-term trends, on best practices, on quality of the science of informatics, and on quality of science as a function of informatics.A critical review of articles in the literature of Bioinformatics over the past year.Our main results suggest that Bioinformatics continues to be a major catalyst for progress in Biology and Translational Medicine, as a consequence of new assaying technologies, most predominantly Next Generation Sequencing, which are changing the landscape of modern biological and medical research. These assays critically depend on bioinformatics and have led to quick growth of corresponding informatics methods development. Clinical-grade molecular signatures are proliferating at a rapid rate. However, a highly publicized incident at a prominent university showed that deficiencies in informatics methods can lead to catastrophic consequences for important scientific projects. Developing evidence-driven protocols and best practices is greatly needed given how serious are the implications for the quality of translational and basic science.Several exciting new methods have appeared over the past 18 months, that open new roads for progress in bioinformatics methods and their impact in biomedicine. At the same time, the range of open problems of great significance is extensive, ensuring the vitality of the field for many years to come.

scholarly journals A Stakeholder-Engaged Approach to Development of an Animal-Assisted Intervention for Obesity Prevention Among Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Pet Dogs

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah E. Linder ◽  
Sara C. Folta ◽  
Aviva Must ◽  
Christina M. Mulé ◽  
Sean B. Cash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Home Therapy ◽  
Therapy Sessions ◽  
Animal Assisted Intervention

Stakeholder involvement in research has been demonstrated to increase the effectiveness, validity, and quality of a study. This paper describes the engagement of a stakeholder panel in the development and implementation of an animal-assisted intervention (AAI) assessment and program for children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Canines for Autism Activity and Nutrition (CAAN) aims to promote physical activity and wellness among children diagnosed with ASD by integrating activities with their pet dog during the child's ongoing Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) in-home therapy sessions. Feedback from stakeholders guided program development at each stage of the research process, including this publication. Utilizing a stakeholder-informed approach was essential for the development of assessment tools, program materials, and program design. Methods that may assist others to effectively partner with stakeholders to implement an AAI among children diagnosed with ASD or related disorders are described.

scholarly journals Potential of stingless bee farm for agriculturally based urban community development in Bandung, West Java

2021 ◽  
Vol 306 ◽  
pp. 02048
Author(s):  
Dika Supyandi ◽  
Parikesit ◽  
Iwan Setiawan
Keyword(s):  
Community Development ◽  
Physical Environment ◽  
Urban Community ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Financial Economic ◽  
Stingless Bee ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Group Members ◽  
The City

The existence of pollinators is highly significant in ensuring sustainability of agriculture produces. Among several pollinators, bees are the most recognized and common in the plant world. In general, two species of bees are identified, namely sting bees and stingless bees. In a middle of the city of Bandung, several stingless beehives have been kept by a community. This paper aims to describe the process of the bee farm, motives behind the farming, participation of community members, and how far this bee farm activities potential to community development. This paper is written based on qualitative research process implementing deep interview, observations, and interview with stakeholders. The results show that stingless bee farm has the potential to improve the processes and outcomes of urban community development, even though hitherto it has not been carried out commercially and profitable; motives of the farm was for environmental protection reasons such as improving the physical environment in the area not for financial/economic reasons; the participation of group members in various group activities can be categorized to be good; two major impacts received by the community are increased social cohesion among community members and improved quality of the physical environment in the area.

scholarly journals A whole community approach to emergency management: Strategies and best practices of seven community programs

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn K. Sobelson, PhD ◽  
Corinne J. Wigington, MPH ◽  
Victoria Harp, BA
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Emergency Management ◽  
Community Building ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Community Programs ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Building Relationships ◽  
Community Approach ◽  
Community Stakeholders ◽  
Routine Monitoring

Objective: In 2011, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) published the Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action, outlining the need for increased individual preparedness and more widespread community engagement to enhance the overall resiliency and security of communities. However, there is limited evidence of how to build a whole community approach to emergency management that provides real-world, practical examples and applications. This article reports on the strategies and best practices gleaned from seven community programs fostering a whole community approach to emergency management.Design: The project team engaged in informal conversations with community stakeholders to learn about their programs during routine monitoring activities, site visits, and during an in-person, facilitated workshop. A total of 88 community members associated with the programs examples contributed. Qualitative analysis was conducted.Results: The findings highlighted best practices gleaned from the seven programs that other communities can leverage to build and maintain their own whole community programs. The findings from the programs also support and validate the three principles and six strategic themes outlined by FEMA. Conclusions: The findings, like the whole community document, highlight the importance of understanding the community, building relationships, empowering action, and fostering social capital to build a whole community approach.

scholarly journals Connecting Courses, Curriculum, and Community, in Chicago

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-17
Author(s):  
Euan Hague
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Integrative Approach ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Disadvantaged Communities ◽  
Scholarly Practice ◽  
Teaching Research ◽  
Urban Institution ◽  
To Receive

I am deeply honored to receive the 2019 Barbara A. Holland Scholar-Administrator Award as I believe strongly in interconnecting the elements of an urban institution: students, faculty, and community members, and integrating these within the classroom, curriculum, disciplinary structures, and administrative best practices. What is more, I suggest that such an integrative approach should be fundamental to our scholarly practice, as teaching, research and community engagement inform and reinforce each other. Our institutions give us opportunities to draw upon considerable resources that can be used to aid disadvantaged communities and, as professionals in the academy, we are well-positioned to pursue pedagogy that can make a difference in our society. 

scholarly journals Community-engaged research to develop a Chicago violence research agenda and recommendations to support future community engagement

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Ellyin ◽  
Kelli Day ◽  
Jacqueline Samuel ◽  
Tami Bartell ◽  
Dion McGill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Violence Prevention ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Prevention Research ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Factors ◽  
Community Stakeholders

Abstract Background Chicago has a history of gun violence with some neighborhoods, particularly Black and Brown communities, being disproportionately affected and Black male youth experiencing an even more disparate impact. Too often, violence prevention research is developed and carried out with little or no input from the people living in the most affected communities. The objective of the Community-Academic Collaboration to Prevent Violence in Chicago (CACPVC) was to bring together individuals from impacted communities with academic researchers and other community stakeholders to discuss violence and co-create a research agenda that addresses topics of mutual concern, and recommendations for engaging stakeholders including community members and organizations and funders in violence and violence prevention research. Methods From 2014 to 2015, community members and organizations from seven defined regions across Chicago were recruited to participate. An organization network gathering was held in each region for researchers, funders, and community organization representatives to discuss violence prevention. Open community forums then took place in each community. Violence data by region was shared followed by facilitated group discussions that were recorded by youth scribes. Notes were thematically coded, grouped, and compiled after which a list of topics was refined by the CACPVC Work Group, allowing for investigator triangulation. A survey was disseminated to community stakeholders to prioritize the topics. Results Seven network gatherings (127 attendees) and community forums (133 attendees) were held. Topic areas identified during the gatherings and forums included root causes/cycle of violence, racism and bias/structural violence, trajectory of violence, protective factors and nonviolence, geographic pattern change, violence prevention strategies, youth, family factors, community factors, school, police, gangs/street organizations, and media and public perceptions. Recommendations to support community engagement were grouped as role of research in reducing violence, role of community in violence research, relationships and respect, academic-community communication, financial considerations, training, practical considerations, research design, sharing results, communication about and use of data, and recommendations for funders. Conclusions The violence research agenda will be used to inform community-engaged violence prevention research. The recommendations for community engagement provide a resource for researchers about topics to consider to meaningfully engage community members in future research.

scholarly journals 2087 Tool to assess opportunities to augment health literacy and culturally responsive components of research design to enhance diverse engagement

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (S1) ◽  
pp. 75-76
Author(s):  
Grisel Robles-Schrader ◽  
Ashley Sipocz ◽  
Evelyn Cordero ◽  
Gina Curry
Keyword(s):  
Focus Groups ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Community Partners ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Community Stakeholders ◽  
Diverse Communities ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The goals of this project are to: (1) Help research teams better understand, anticipate, and adapt research to address the needs of diverse communities. (2) Help clinicians and researchers develop patient-centered communication skills needed for more frequent and meaningful engagement of research participants. (3) Identify additional service support needs of clinical research teams not currently offered by other centers (e.g., translation services by certified translators, access to bilingual/bicultural research staff) so they can effectively recruit diverse communities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Mixed methods evaluation approaches centered on obtaining community and academic input aimed at revising the tool to enhance its feasibility and relevance. Round one of focus groups were conducted (4), 2 with a diverse group of community stakeholders, 2 with a diverse group of academic stakeholders. Focus group feedback guided HLCR Assessment Tool revisions. This round of focus groups, served as an opportunity for community and academic stakeholders to discuss shared and divergent priorities related to the development and utilization of the tool. Feedback from these sessions guided a second set of revisions to the tool. Brief surveys were administered at each time point to gather participant demographic data. For the first round of focus groups with community stakeholders, 2 diverse groups totaling 19 people participated (11 female, 7 male, 1 no answer; 6 Asian/Pacific Islander, 6 Black/African American, 4 Latino/Hispanic, and 3 White/Caucasian). Participants served a variety of populations including seniors, youth, underserved, Muslim Americans, Bangladeshi, Arab, South Asian, refugees, community health centers, service organizations, 1st generation students, Latinos, multi-ethnic groups, limited English speaking, people with lupus, un/underinsured, people with HIV, Korean Americans, African Americans, and the disability community. Data pending on the first round of focus groups with academic stakeholders. All participants of the first round of focus groups will be invited to return to a second round of focus groups (2), this time only 2 groups will be held, and these will combine community and academic participants in each focus group. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Along with formatting and grammatical revisions, recurring recommendations focused on considerations/clarifications in 3 main areas: compensation for all stakeholders, developing a common language and clarifying terms, and aligning the research process with the community. Considerations around compensation was mentioned in discussions related to multiple tool domains. In particular, community stakeholders recommended inclusion and consideration of compensation not just for research participants but also community partners, sites, community representatives, and other academic partners. It was also very important to make sure the form of compensation for both community partners and participants aligns with what was being asked of them. Community stakeholders sited a few examples where they were involved in studies where the time and requirements for participation were not commensurate with the compensation they received or the study budget did not include compensation for community partner effort. Along with edits to questions in the HLCR Assessment Tool, community stakeholders also recommended education for budget/finance personnel on fair compensation for research participants and community partners. In both focus groups, there was also confusion around specific terms and an identified need to develop a common language and clarify terms among all those involved in the research process. More specifically, terms such as community, culture, community of focus, community partners, accessible, and convenient were identified as needing further definition or clarification. Through the focus groups, we learned the valuable lesson that it cannot be assumed broad terms or even seemingly specific ones will be interpreted the same by everyone or have the same meaning in different contexts. Therefore, it needs to be very clear what these terms mean and who or what they represent. Finally, the community stakeholders emphasized throughout both focus groups the importance of making sure that the HLCR Assessment Tool unpack and explicitly emphasize how the research process can align and should align with community needs, communication structures, influencers, and assets. Some factors community stakeholders suggested be considered were: (1) Where the researcher is in the research process; (2) How community members prefer to communicate with each other; (3) Stigma/biases (e.g., class) that may be pervasive in a particular community; (4) Identification of key community influencers/gatekeepers; (5) Learning about a community’s assets along with their needs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Currently, there is dearth of resources focused on increasing diverse engagement in clinical and translational research, and consequently, research teams have little or no knowledge or support for how or when to engage community partners in clinical or translational research. The goal of this project is to help fill that gap with a tool to guide clinical and translational research teams in assessing the health literacy and culturally responsive components of their research projects to improve recruitment of diverse populations. Feedback on the first iteration of the HLCR Assessment Tool helped us identify the priorities for community stakeholders and better understand their concerns and needs around engagement with academic partners in clinical and translational research. This understanding will help us enhance the relevance and usefulness of the HLCR Assessment Tool so that clinical and translational science researchers more effectively engage with community partners and help ensure the community’s needs are better aligned with. Therefore, developing and pilot testing this tool can offer a significant opportunity for clinical and translational sciences institutions to enable their researchers and their teams to teams better understand, anticipate, and adapt to the cultural and health literacy needs of diverse populations. More specifically, this tool can: (1) Help clinicians develop the patient-centered communication skills needed to facilitate more frequent and meaningful engagement of potential research participants during medical visits to truly make every healthcare encounter an opportunity for research. (2) Help clinical and translational sciences institutes identify additional service support clinical research teams will need access to in order to effectively recruit diverse communities, that are not currently not supported [e.g., translation services by certified translators, access to bilingual/bicultural research staff at all level (i.e., study coordinators, research assistants, etc.), etc.].

The role of personalization, engagement, and trust in online communities

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minjeong Kang ◽  
Dong-Hee Shin ◽  
Taeshik Gong
Keyword(s):  
Community Engagement ◽  
Marketing Strategies ◽  
Brand Community ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Brand Communities ◽  
Online Brand Communities ◽  
Perceived Familiarity

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore whether brand community characteristics (perceived personalization and familiarity among members) affect brand community engagement through customer-to-customer (C2C) interaction. Design/methodology/approach – A survey questionnaire was distributed to members of online brand communities to test the research hypotheses. Findings – The findings showed that the relationships among the brand community constructs are significant. C2C interaction mediates the relations between the characteristic variables and brand community engagement. Furthermore, the findings revealed that brand community trust moderates the effects of perceived personalization on the quality of C2C interaction and on brand community engagement. It also moderates the relations between perceived familiarity among community members and each of brand community engagement and the quality of C2C interaction. Practical implications – Marketers should utilize a brand community’s C2C interaction for its marketing strategies. Moreover, managing brand communities by focussing on perceived personalized service and the familiarity of members can also ultimately increase community engagement by enhancing the quality of C2C communication. Originality/value – This study argues that firms need to manage online brand communities intuitively in order to increase members’ community engagement. To do so, they need to allocate spaces in which C2C communication can actively occur within brand communities, for example, in a discussion forum.

scholarly journals Community-Engaged Research to Develop a Chicago Violence Research Agenda and Recommendations to Support Future Community Engagement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Ellyin ◽  
Kelli Day ◽  
Jacqueline Samuel ◽  
Tami Bartell ◽  
Dion McGill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Violence Prevention ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Prevention Research ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Community Factors ◽  
Community Stakeholders

Abstract Background: Chicago has a history of gun violence with some neighborhoods, particularly Black and Brown communities, being disproportionately affected and Black male youth experiencing an even more disparate impact. Too often, violence prevention research is developed and carried out with little or no input from the people living in the most affected communities. The objective of the Community-Academic Collaboration to Prevent Violence in Chicago (CACPVC) was to bring together individuals from impacted communities with academic researchers and other community stakeholders to discuss violence and co-create a research agenda that addresses topics of mutual concern, and recommendations for engaging stakeholders including community members and organizations and funders in violence and violence prevention research.Methods: From 2014 to 2015, community members and organizations from seven defined regions across Chicago were recruited to participate. An organization network gathering was held in each region for researchers, funders, and community organization representatives to discuss violence prevention. Open community forums then took place in each community. Violence data by region was shared followed by facilitated group discussions that were recorded by youth scribes. Notes were thematically coded, grouped, and compiled after which a list of topics was refined by the CACPVC Work Group, allowing for investigator triangulation. A survey was disseminated to community stakeholders to prioritize the topics. Results: Seven network gatherings (127 attendees) and community forums (133 attendees) were held. Topic areas identified during the gatherings and forums included root causes/cycle of violence, racism and bias/structural violence, trajectory of violence, protective factors and nonviolence, geographic pattern change, violence prevention strategies, youth, family factors, community factors, school, police, gangs/street organizations, and media and public perceptions. Recommendations to support community engagement were grouped as role of research in reducing violence, role of community in violence research, relationships and respect, academic-community communication, financial considerations, training, practical considerations, research design, sharing results, communication about and use of data, and recommendations for funders.Conclusions: The violence research agenda will be used to inform community-engaged violence prevention research. The recommendations for community engagement provide a resource for researchers about topics to consider to meaningfully engage community members in future research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document