Objectives: To understand the formal roles of community representatives (CRs) in Clinical and Translational Science Awardee (CTSA) activities, to evaluate the extent of integration into the organizational and governance structures and to identify barriers to effective integration.Methods: The inventory tool was distributed to each of the 60 CTSAs using a secure web application.Results: Forty-seven (78%) completed the inventory. The mean number of CRs per CTSA is 21.4 (SD: 14.8). Most CTSAs had community advisory boards (89%) and 94% included CRs in Community Engagement (CE) cores. Only 11% reported a CR being a member of the CTSA leadership team and 19% reported that CRs advise core programs beyond CE.CRs are compensated by 79% of CTSAs. Mean annual compensation is $753 (median: $400). Compensation directly correlated with the number of hours that CRs worked in CTSA activities (r = 0.64; P = 0.001).Conclusions: This inventory allows CTSAs to better understand how CRs have engaged in activities and brings attention to the limited representation among cores and in leadership roles. CTSAs should, with substantive input from CRs, develop strategies to provide the resources and compensation necessary to better integrate the community in CTSA activities and fully realize the goals of the CTSA vision.

CGR is an effective mechanism for providing needed community health information in an easily accessible format. Additional work is needed to determine whether this format represents a sustainable community-university partnership.

Efforts to move community engagement in research from marginalized to mainstream include the NIH requiring community engagement programs in all Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs). However, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how little these efforts have changed the dominant culture of clinical research. When faced with the urgent need to generate knowledge about prevention and treatment of the novel coronavirus, researchers largely neglected to involve community stakeholders early in the research process. This failure cannot be divorced from the broader context of systemic racism in the US that has contributed to Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) communities bearing a disproportionate toll from COVID-19, being underrepresented in COVID-19 clinical trials, and expressing greater hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccination. We call on research funders and research institutions to take decisive action to make community engagement obligatory, not optional, in all clinical and translational research and to center BIPOC communities in this process. Recommended actions include funding agencies requiring all research proposals involving human participants to include a community engagement plan, providing adequate funding to support ongoing community engagement, including community stakeholders in agency governance and proposal reviews, promoting racial and ethnic diversity in the research workforce, and making a course in community engaged research a requirement for Masters of Clinical Research curricula.

Engaging communities in research is increasingly recognized as critical to translation of research into improved health outcomes. Our objective was to understand community stakeholders’ perspectives on researchers, academic institutions, and how community is valued in research. A 45-item survey assessing experiences and perceptions of research (trust, community value, equity, researcher preparedness, indicators of successful engagement) was distributed to 226 community members involved in health research with academic institutions. Of the 109 respondents, 60% were racial/ethnic minorities and 78% were women, representing a range of community organizations, faith-based organizations, and public health agencies. Most (57%) reported current involvement with a CTSA. Only 25% viewed researchers as well prepared to engage communities and few (13%) reported that resources were available and adequate to support community involvement. Most community stakeholders (66%) were compensated for their involvement in research, but only 40% perceived compensation to be appropriate. Trust of research and perceptions that researchers value community were more positive among those who perceived their compensation as appropriate (p=0.001). Appropriate compensation and resources to support community involvement in research may improve perceptions of trust and value in academic-community partnerships. Strategies are needed to increase researcher preparedness to engage with communities.

AbstractA 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 Healthʼs (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.

The Community-Engaged Research Team Support (CERTS) program was developed and tested to build research and partnership capacity for community-engaged research (CEnR) teams. Led by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (NUCATS), the goals of CERTS were: (1) to help community-academic teams build capacity for conducting rigorous CEnR and (2) to support teams as they prepare federal grant proposal drafts. The program was guided by an advisory committee of community and clinical partners, and representatives from Chicago's Clinical and Translational Science Institutes. Monthly workshops guided teams to write elements of NIH-style research proposals. Draft reviewing fostered a collaborative learning environment and helped teams develop equal partnerships. The program culminated in a mock-proposal review. All teams clarifi ed their research and acquired new knowledge about the preparation of NIH-style proposals. Trust, partnership collaboration, and a structured writing strategy were assets of the CERTS approach. CERTS also uncovered gaps in resources and preparedness for teams to be competitive for federally funded grants. Areas of need include experience as principal investigators, publications on study results, mentoring, institutional infrastructure, and dedicated time for research. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 6: 214-221

Background We evaluated a community‐engaged stroke preparedness intervention that aimed to increase early hospital arrival and emergency medical services (EMS) utilization among patients with stroke in the South Side of Chicago, Illinois. Methods and Results We compared change in early hospital arrival (<3 hours from symptom onset) and EMS utilization before and after our intervention among patients with confirmed ischemic stroke at an intervention hospital on the South Side of Chicago with concurrent data from 6 hospitals in nonintervention communities on the North Side of Chicago and 17 hospitals in St Louis, Missouri. We assessed EMS utilization for suspected stroke secondarily, using geospatial information systems analysis of Chicago ambulance transports before and after our intervention. Among 21 497 patients with confirmed ischemic stroke across all sites, early arrival rates at the intervention hospital increased by 0.5% per month (95% CI, −0.2% to 1.2%) after intervention compared with the preintervention period but were not different from North Side Chicago hospitals (difference of −0.3% per month [95% CI, −0.12% to 0.06%]) or St Louis hospitals (difference of 0.7% per month [95% CI, −0.1% to 1.4%]). EMS utilization at the intervention hospital decreased by 0.8% per month (95% CI, −1.7% to 0.2%) but was not different from North Side Chicago hospitals (difference of 0.004% per month [95% CI, −1.1% to 1.1%]) or St Louis hospitals (difference of −0.7% per month [95% CI, −1.7% to 0.3%]). EMS utilization for suspected stroke increased in the areas surrounding the intervention hospital (odds ratio [OR], 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2–1.6) and in the South Side (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1–1.3), but not in the North Side (OR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9–1.1). Conclusions Following a community stroke preparedness intervention, early hospital arrival and EMS utilization for confirmed ischemic stroke did not increase. However, ambulance transports for suspected stroke increased in the intervention community compared with other regions. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02301299.

Engaging communities in research is increasingly recognized as critical to translation of research into improved health outcomes. Our objective was to understand community stakeholders' perspectives on researchers, academic institutions, and how community is valued in research. A 45-item survey assessing experiences and perceptions of research (trust, community value, equity, researcher preparedness, indicators of successful engagement) was distributed to 226 community members involved in health research with academic institutions. Of the 109 respondents, 60% were racial/ethnic minorities and 78% were women, representing a range of community organizations, faith-based organizations, and public health agencies. Most (57%) reported current involvement with a CTSA. Only 25% viewed researchers as well prepared to engage communities and few (13%) reported that resources were available and adequate to support community involvement. Most community stakeholders (66%) were compensated for their involvement in research, but only 40% perceived compensation to be appropriate. Trust of research and perceptions that researchers value community were more positive among those who perceived their compensation as appropriate (p=0.001).