No abstract

What is one word you would use to describe your experience conducting grant-funded research projects in which community partners receive funding? Why did you choose this word?2) I'm now going to ask questions about your experience during the pre-award period (before grant funding is received). These questions relate to grant funded research projects in which community partners would receive funding.

No abstract

Sustaining collaborations between community-based organization leaders and academic researchers in community-engaged research (CEnR) in the service of decreasing health inequities necessitates understanding the collaborations from an inter-organizational perspective. We assessed the perspectives of community leaders and university-based researchers conducting community-engaged research in a medium-sized city with a history of community-university tension. Our research team, included experts in CEnR and organizational theory, used qualitative methods and purposeful, snowball sampling to recruit local participants and performed key informant interviews from July 2011–May 2012. A community-based researcher interviewed 11 community leaders, a university-based researcher interviewed 12 university-based researchers. We interviewed participants until we reached thematic saturation and performed analyses using the constant comparative method. Unifying themes characterizing community leaders and university-based researchers' relationships on the inter-organizational level include: 1) Both groups described that community-engaged university-based researchers are exceptions to typical university culture; 2) Both groups described that the interpersonal skills university-based researchers need for CEnR require a change in organizational culture and training; 3) Both groups described skepticism about the sustainability of a meaningful institutional commitment to community-engaged research 4) Both groups described the historical impact on research relationships of race, power, and privilege, but only community leaders described its persistent role and relevance in research relationships. Challenges to community-academic research partnerships include researcher interpersonal skills and different perceptions of the importance of organizational history. Solutions to improve research partnerships may include transforming university culture and community-university discussions on race, power, and privilege.

Background Sepsis affects 1.7 million patients in the US annually, is one of the leading causes of mortality, and is a major driver of US healthcare costs. African American/Black and LatinX populations experience higher rates of sepsis complications, deviations from standard care, and readmissions compared with Non-Hispanic White populations. Despite clear evidence of structural racism in sepsis care and outcomes, there are no prospective interventions to mitigate structural racism in sepsis care, nor are we aware of studies that report reductions in racial inequities in sepsis care as an outcome. Therefore, we will deliver and evaluate a coalition-based intervention to equip health systems and their surrounding communities to mitigate structural racism, driving measurable reductions in inequities in sepsis outcomes. This paper presents the theoretical foundation for the study, summarizes key elements of the intervention, and describes the methodology to evaluate the intervention. Methods Our aims are to: (1) deliver a coalition-based leadership intervention in eight U.S. health systems and their surrounding communities; (2) evaluate the impact of the intervention on organizational culture using a longitudinal, convergent mixed methods approach, and (3) evaluate the impact of the intervention on reduction of racial inequities in three clinical outcomes: a) early identification (time to antibiotic), b) clinical management (in-hospital sepsis mortality) and c) standards-based follow up (same-hospital, all-cause sepsis readmissions) using interrupted time series analysis. Discussion This study is aligned with calls to action by the NIH and the Sepsis Alliance to address inequities in sepsis care and outcomes. It is the first to intervene to mitigate effects of structural racism by developing the domains of organizational culture that are required for anti-racist action, with implications for inequities in complex health outcomes beyond sepsis.

No abstract

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: 1. To assess the acceptability and feasibility and of an online self-assessment version of the Community REsearch Activity Assessment Tool (CREAT), an instrument to measure research capacity of CBOs. 2. To elicit CBO perspectives on their research and knowledge generation activities. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Thirteen CBOs who had previously partnered with an academic course on practice-based community health research were contacted and asked to participate in the field testing of the CREAT and provide feedback on areas of strength and areas for potential improvement. Eleven organizations completed the field testing, which began and ended with an in-person semi-structured interview with the online self-administration of the CREAT in the middle. The semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded with questions pertaining to topics such as: strengths and challenges of previous academic research partnerships, perceptions around the importance of research within the organization, thoughts and reactions to the CREAT, and general feedback about the CREAT. Results from the self-administered CREAT were used to test a scoring algorithm. Semi-structured interviews are being transcribed, pre-post responses to questions of strengths and challenges in engaging in research partnerships will be compared, and overall qualitative transcripts will be coded using grounded theory. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Anticipated Results: The CREAT was acceptable and self-administration was feasible. Average time for completion of the online CREAT was 41 ± 13 min, and respondents did not need assistance from the interviewer to complete the online instrument. Suggestions for improvements focused on word choices and scale options. Respondents were aware of the importance of research activities for their CBOs, particularly for optimizing programmatic quality and services. Access to staff and financial resources were key barriers to strengthening research capacity, and respondents noted that engaging in research partnerships can also bring in additional resources. Interview transcription is still in progress along with the refinement of the codebook for the qualitative data collected. In alignment with objectives/goals outlined above, the results will be separated into the following four sections: CBO Research and Knowledge Generation Activities, Acceptability of the Tool, Feasibility of the Tool, and Refinement of the Tool. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: The online, self-administered CREAT instrument is acceptable and feasible for CBO respondents. Availability of a validated tool to assess research capacity of CBOs, developed and refined with input from community researchers, will support targeted research capacity building for CTSAs, community organizations and partners, thus strengthening collaborations. Translational scientists, public health systems and community health improvement depend on CBOs as partners in community-engaged research (CEnR). The CREAT will allow community members to more fully contribute the...