Unraveling health disparities: Examining the dimensions of hypertension and diabetes through community engagement

2005 ◽  
Vol 16 (4A) ◽  
pp. 91-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia B. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Community Engagement

scholarly journals 3511 Adapting Community Engagement Studios to Accommodate Participants from Diverse and Rural/Frontier Communities

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 81-82
Author(s):  
Barbara Heather Coulter ◽  
Brieanne Witte ◽  
Louisa A Stark
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Staff Member ◽  
Research Participation ◽  
Community Leader ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Rural And Urban ◽  
Dissemination Of Research ◽  
Strongly Agree ◽  
Almost All

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Our goals in developing adaptations to the Community Engagement Studio model have been to: (1) enable investigators to consult with as broad a range of community “experts” (stakeholders) as possible, (2) make Studio participation feasible for stakeholders from rural and frontier areas, (3) create a safe environment for stakeholders from communities facing health disparities, who have had low participation in research, and (4) enable stakeholders to speak in the language in which they are most comfortable. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We have used several strategies to enable investigators to gain input from stakeholders in rural and frontier areas. If the research focuses on rural populations, we hold the Studio at a central location, usually at a restaurant in a private room, if this is available. If the investigator wants to hear from both rural and urban residents, we use videoconferencing via Skype or FaceTime when individuals have enough bandwidth to support it and/or feel comfortable using this technology. For those who have dial-up or no internet access, we provide a conference call line Trusting relationships are essential to creating a safe space in which stakeholders from communities facing health disparities can provide consultations to researchers. When an investigator wishes to consult with stakeholders from one racial/ethnic community, we contract with a leader or trusted member of that community to recruit appropriate stakeholders. The Studio is co-facilitated by a CCET staff member and a community leader in the community’s preferred language, with the leader translating for the CCET staff member. For Studios that involve stakeholders from multiple communities and that are conducted in English, we provide translators, if appropriate. Stakeholders using translation may be present in the room with other Studio participants or may be on the phone. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Of the 35 Studios we have held, five have been held in rural locations and another five have included one or more rural/frontier stakeholders participating via phone or videoconferencing. Six Studios have been co-facilitated with community leaders and four others have included translators. Almost all Studios we have held in English have included individuals representing diverse communities. Anonymous surveys completed at the end of Studios show that participants report the following on 5-point Likert scales:. The facilitator managed the allotted time so that my voice was heard (67% strongly agree; 33% agree). The relevant experts were present at the Studio (78% strongly agree; 22% agree). I was satisfied with the Studio session (78% strongly agree; 22% agree). The Studio process was worth my time (89% strongly agree; 11% agree). The feedback provided by the community experts will improve the research project (68% strongly agree; 44% agree). Participants were also asked what they felt was their contribution to the research project. Among the most common themes were: increased researcher’s understanding of the community, increased researcher’s sensitivity to the community, provided feedback on the feasibility of the project, provided ideas on recruiting research participants, provided ideas for how to use the project results to benefit the community, and provided ideas on how to inform the community about the project. All participants said that they would participate in a Studio again. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Studies at all stages in the research life cycle can be strengthened through consultations with community experts. These stakeholders can inform needs assessments, provide input on study design, supply critical information on supports and barriers to research participation, review study instruments for readability and cultural appropriateness, provide feedback on recruitment and educational materials, and inform dissemination of research results, among others. These consultations provide the most benefit to researchers when they include the voices of as broad a range of stakeholders as possible. We have shown that it is feasible to include stakeholders who live in rural and frontier areas in Studio consultations. We also have developed successful methods for holding Studio consultations with stakeholders who are members of communities facing health disparities and who speak multiple languages. This expanded representation in Community Engagement Studios strengthens research studies.

scholarly journals Queens Library HealthLink: Fighting Health Disparities through Community Engagement

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara A. Michel ◽  
Eilleen Sabino ◽  
Alexis J. Stevenson ◽  
Elisa Weiss ◽  
Alison Carpenter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Community Engagement

scholarly journals Impacting Health Disparities in Urban Communities: Preparing Future Healthcare Providers for “Neighborhood-Engaged Care” Through a Community Engagement Course Intervention

2016 ◽  
Vol 93 (4) ◽  
pp. 732-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norma Alicea-Alvarez ◽  
Kathleen Reeves ◽  
Matthew S. Lucas ◽  
Diana Huang ◽  
Melanie Ortiz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Urban Communities ◽  
Healthcare Providers

scholarly journals Community Engagement Practices at Research Centers in U.S. Minority Institutions: Priority Populations and Innovative Approaches to Advancing Health Disparities Research

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6675
Author(s):  
Tabia Henry Akintobi ◽  
Payam Sheikhattari ◽  
Emma Shaffer ◽  
Christina L. Evans ◽  
Kathryn L. Braun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Community Research ◽  
Research Centers ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Building Community ◽  
Minority Institutions

This paper details U.S. Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Community Engagement Cores (CECs): (1) unique and cross-cutting components, focus areas, specific aims, and target populations; and (2) approaches utilized to build or sustain trust towards community participation in research. A mixed-method data collection approach was employed for this cross-sectional study of current or previously funded RCMIs. A total of 18 of the 25 institutions spanning 13 U.S. states and territories participated. CEC specific aims were to support community engaged research (94%); to translate and disseminate research findings (88%); to develop partnerships (82%); and to build capacity around community research (71%). Four open-ended questions, qualitative analysis, and comparison of the categories led to the emergence of two supporting themes: (1) establishing trust between the community-academic collaborators and within the community and (2) building collaborative relationships. An overarching theme, building community together through trust and meaningful collaborations, emerged from the supporting themes and subthemes. The RCMI institutions and their CECs serve as models to circumvent the historical and current challenges to research in communities disproportionately affected by health disparities. Lessons learned from these cores may help other institutions who want to build community trust in and capacities for research that addresses community-related health concerns.

scholarly journals 3406 Understanding the Barriers, Challenges, and Facilitators to Community-Engaged Research: A Review of a CTSA Community Engagement Pilot Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (s1) ◽  
pp. 99-100
Author(s):  
Ashley Dunn ◽  
Kendra L. Smith ◽  
Rhonda McClinton-Brown ◽  
Jill W. Evans ◽  
Lisa Goldman-Rosas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Disparities ◽  
Focus Group ◽  
Community Engagement ◽  
Translational Research ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Pilot Program ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
Community Engaged Research ◽  
Academic Partnerships ◽  
Clinical And Translational Research

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: Engaging patients and consumers in research is a complex process where innovative strategies are needed to effectively translate scientific discoveries into improvements in the public’s health (Wilkins et. al., 2013; Terry et. al., 2013). The Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSA)—supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) under the auspices of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS)—aim to provide resources and support needed to strengthen our nation’s clinical and translational research (CTR) enterprise. In 2008, Stanford University was awarded a CTSA from the NIH, establishing Spectrum (Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Research and Education) and its Community Engagement (CE) Program aimed at building long-standing community-academic research partnerships for translational research in the local area surrounding Stanford University. To date, the CE Pilot Program has funded 38 pilot projects from the 2009-2017 calendar year. The purpose of this study was to understand, through a unique pilot program, the barriers, challenges, and facilitators to community-engaged research targeting health disparities as well as community-academic partnerships. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Investigators conducted a qualitative study of the community engagement pilot program. Previous pilot awardees were recruited via email and phone to participate in a one-hour focus group to discuss their pilot project experience—describing any barriers, challenges, and facilitators to implementing their pilot project. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The focus group revealed that community engage research through the pilot program was not only appreciated by faculty, but projects were successful, and partnerships developed were sustained after funding. Specifically, the pilot program has seen success in both traditional and capacity building metrics: the initial investment of $652,250.00 to fund 38 projects has led to over $11 million dollars in additional grant funding. In addition, pilot funding has led to peer-reviewed publications, data resources for theses and dissertations, local and national presentations/news articles, programmatic innovation, and community-level impact. Challenges and barriers were mainly related to timing, grant constraints, and university administrative processes. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The Community Engagement Pilot Program demonstrates an innovative collaborative approach to support community-academic partnerships. This assessment highlights the value and importance of pilot program to increase community engaged research targeting health disparities. Challenges are mainly administrative in nature: pilot awardees mentioned difficulties working on university quarterly timelines, challenges of subcontracting or sharing money with community partners, onerous NIH prior approval process, and limitations to carryover funding. However, pilot grants administered through the program strengthen the capacity to develop larger scale community-based research initiatives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document