Aim Using a stakeholder‐engaged approach, this study conducted content validation and item reduction of a quantitative measure of research engagement. Methods A five‐round modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on items. Rounds 1–3 and 5 were conducted using web‐based surveys. Round 4 consisted of a 2‐day, in‐person meeting. Delphi panelists received individualized reports outlining individual and aggregate group responses after rounds 1–3. Results Over the five‐round process, items were added, dropped, modified, and moved from one engagement principle to another. The number of items was reduced from 48 to 32, with three to five items corresponding to eight engagement principles. Conclusions Research that develops standardized, reliable, and accurate measures to assess stakeholder engagement is essential to understanding the impact of engagement on scientific discovery and the scientific process. Valid quantitative measures to assess stakeholder engagement in research are necessary to assess associations between engagement and research outcomes.

Background Personalized medicine may increase the amount of probabilistic information patients encounter. Little guidance exists about communicating risk for multiple diseases simultaneously or about communicating how changes in risk factors affect risk (hereafter “risk reduction”). Purpose To determine how to communicate personalized risk and risk reduction information for up to 5 diseases associated with insufficient physical activity in a way laypeople can understand and that increases intentions. Methods We recruited 500 participants with <150 min weekly of physical activity from community settings. Participants completed risk assessments for diabetes, heart disease, stroke, colon cancer, and breast cancer (women only) on a smartphone. Then, they were randomly assigned to view personalized risk and risk reduction information organized as a bulleted list, a simplified table, or a specialized vertical bar graph (“risk ladder”). Last, they completed a questionnaire assessing outcomes. Personalized risk and risk reduction information was presented as categories (e.g., “very low”). Our analytic sample ( N = 372) included 41.3% individuals from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds, 15.9% with vocational-technical training or less, 84.7% women, 43.8% aged 50 to 64 y, and 71.8% who were overweight/obese. Results Analyses of covariance with post hoc comparisons showed that the risk ladder elicited higher gist comprehension than the bulleted list ( P = 0.01). There were no significant main effects on verbatim comprehension or physical activity intentions and no moderation by sex, race/ethnicity, education, numeracy, or graph literacy ( P > 0.05). Sequential mediation analyses revealed a small beneficial indirect effect of risk ladder versus list on intentions through gist comprehension and then through perceived risk ( bIndirectEffect = 0.02, 95% confidence interval: 0.00, 0.04). Conclusion Risk ladders can communicate the gist meaning of multiple pieces of risk information to individuals from many sociodemographic backgrounds and with varying levels of facility with numbers and graphs.

Background Despite recognition of the importance of stakeholder input into research, there is a lack of validated measures to assess how well constituencies are engaged and their input integrated into research design. Measurement theory suggests that a community engagement measure should use clear and simple language and capture important components of underlying constructs, resulting in a valid measure that is accessible to a broad audience. Objective The primary objective of this study was to evaluate how community members understood and responded to a measure of community engagement developed to be reliable, valid, easily administered, and broadly usable. Method Cognitive response interviews were completed, during which participants described their reactions to items and how they processed them. Participants were asked to interpret item meaning, paraphrase items, and identify difficult or problematic terms and phrases, as well as provide any concerns with response options while responding to 16 of 32 survey items. Results The results of the cognitive response interviews of participants (N = 16) suggest concerns about plain language and literacy, clarity of question focus, and the lack of context clues to facilitate processing in response to items querying research experience. Minimal concerns were related to response options. Participants suggested changes in words and terms, as well as item structure. Conclusion Qualitative research can improve the validity and accessibility of measures that assess stakeholder experience of community-engaged research. The findings suggest wording and sentence structure changes that improve ability to assess implementation of community engagement and its impact on research outcomes.

Previous analyses of Stand Your Ground (SYG) cases have been primarily descriptive. We examine the relationship between race of the victim and conviction of the defendant in SYG cases in Florida from 2005 to 2013. Using a regression analytic approach, we allow for simultaneous examination of multiple factors to better understand existing interrelationships. Data was obtained from the Tampa Bay Times SYG database (237 cases) which was supplemented with available online court documents and/or news reports. After excluding cases which were, still pending as of January 2015; had multiple outcomes (because of multiple suspects); and missing information on race of victim and weapon of victim, our final analytic sample has 204 cases. We chose whether the case resulted in a conviction as the outcome. We develop logistic regression models using significant bivariate predictors as candidates. These include race of the victim (White, non-White), whether the defendant could have retreated from the situation, whether the defendant pursued the victim, if the victim was unarmed, and who was the initiator of the confrontation. We find race of the victim to be a significant predictor of case outcome in this data set. After controlling for other variables, the defendant is two times (OR = 2.1, 95% CI [1.07, 4.10]) more likely to be convicted in a case that involves White victims compared to those involving non-White victims. Our results depict a disturbing message: SYG legislation in Florida has a quantifiable racial bias that reveals a leniency in convictions if the victim is non-White, which provides evidence towards unequal treatment under the law. Rather than attempting to hide the outcomes of these laws, as was done in Florida, other states with SYG laws should carry out similar analyses to see if their manifestations are the same as those in Florida, and all should remediate any injustices found.

Background The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) was developed to examine the level of partner (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) engagement in research studies. The REST is aligned with eight engagement principles based on the literature and consensus reached through a five round Delphi process. Each of the engagement principles has three-five corresponding items that are assessed on two Likert type scales quantity (how often: never, rarely, sometimes, often, always, not applicable) and quality (how well: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, not applicable). We conducted a comprehensive validation of the REST. Despite the importance of partner engagement in research, currently no gold standard measure exists. Methods Multiple strategies were employed to validate the REST. Here, we examine the internal consistency of items for each of the eight engagement principles. In addition, we examine the convergent validity of the comprehensive (32-item) REST with other measures (e.g., medical mistrust, Community Engagement in Research Index, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool, Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Assessment In community-based Research). We propose two scoring approaches for the REST; one aligned with the engagement principles and the other aligned with levels of community engagement: (1) outreach and education, (2) consultation, (3) cooperation, (4) collaboration, and (5) partnership. Results The REST has strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.75) for each of the eight engagement principals measured on both scales (quality and quantity). The REST had negligible (e.g., medical mistrust, community engagement in research index), low (e.g., Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- benefits scale), and moderate (e.g., Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- synergy scale) statistically significant correlations with other measures based on the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. These results suggest the REST is measuring something similar and correlated to the existing measures, but it captures a different construct (perceived research engagement). Conclusions The REST is a valid and reliable tool to assess research engagement of community health stakeholders in the research process. Valid tools to assess research engagement are necessary to examine the impact of engagement on the scientific process and scientific discovery and move the field of stakeholder engagement from best practices and lessons learned to evidence-based approaches based on empirical data.