This article describes how a new regional campus of an academic health center engaged in a community-based participatory research (CBPR) process to set a community-driven research agenda to address health disparities. The campus is situated among growing Marshallese and Hispanic populations that face significant health disparities. In 2013, with support from the Translational Research Institute, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Northwest began building its research capacity in the region with the goal of developing a community-driven research agenda for the campus. While many researchers engage in some form of community-engaged research, using a CBPR process to set the research agenda for an entire campus is unique. Utilizing multiple levels of engagement, three research areas were chosen by the community: 1) chronic disease management and prevention; 2) obesity and physical activity; and 3) access to culturally appropriate healthcare. In only 18 months, the CBPR collaboration had dramatic results. Ten grants and five scholarly articles were collaboratively written and 25 community publications and presentations were disseminated. Nine research projects and health programs were initiated. In addition, many interprofessional educational and service learning objectives were aligned with the community-driven agenda resulting in practical action to address the needs identified.

Structured Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study is to use a community-based participatory approach to pilot test a family model of diabetes education conducted in participants’ homes with extended family members. Approximately 50% of Marshallese adults have type 2 diabetes, and prior attempts at diabetes education have not been shown effective due in large part to very high attrition. Research Design and Methods The pilot test included six families (27 participants) who took part in a family model of diabetes self-management education (DSME) using an intervention driven pre-test/post-test design with the aim of improving glycemic control as measured by A1C. Questionnaires and additional biometric data were also collected. Researchers systematically documented elements of feasibility using participant observations and research field reports. Results Over three-fourths (78%) of participants were retained in the study. Post-test results indicated a 5% reduction in A1C across all participants and a 7% reduction among those with type 2 diabetes. Feasibility of an in-home model with extended family members was documented, along with observations and recommendation for further DSME adaptations related to blood glucose monitoring, physical activity, nutrition, and medication adherence. Conclusions The information gained from this pilot helps bridge the gap between knowledge of an evidence-based intervention and the actual implementation of the intervention within a unique minority population with especially high rates of type 2 diabetes and significant health disparities. Building on the emerging literature of family models of DSME, this study shows that the family model delivered in the home had high acceptance and that the intervention was more accessible for this hard-to-reach population.

The program had to be flexible enough to meet the educational requirements and class schedules of the different health professions' education programs. The target community spoke limited English, so providing interpretation services using bilingual Marshallese community health workers was integral to the program's success.

(1) Background: Prior studies have documented that access to testing has not been equitable across all communities in the US, with less testing availability and lower testing rates documented in rural counties and lower income communities. However, there is limited understanding of the perceived barriers to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) testing. The purpose of this study was to document the perceived barriers to COVID-19 testing. (2) Methods: Arkansas residents were recruited using a volunteer research participant registry. Participants were asked an open-ended question regarding their perceived barriers to testing. A qualitative descriptive analytical approach was used. (3) Results: Overall, 1221 people responded to the open-ended question. The primary barriers to testing described by participants were confusion and uncertainty regarding testing guidelines and where to go for testing, lack of accessible testing locations, perceptions that the nasal swab method was too painful, and long wait times for testing results. (4) Conclusions: This study documents participant reported barriers to COVID-19 testing. Through the use of a qualitative descriptive method, participants were able to discuss their concerns in their own words. This work provides important insights that can help public health leaders and healthcare providers with understanding and mitigating barriers to COVID-19 testing.