The Bidirectional Engagement and Equity (BEE) Research Framework to Guide Community-Academic Partnerships: Developed From a Narrative Review and Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The engagement of community partners in equitable partnerships with academic teams is necessary to achieve health equity. However, there is no standardized approach to support bidirectional engagement among research stakeholders in the context of partnership equity at each phase of the research process. OBJECTIVE: We describe the development of a systematic framework along with competencies and tools promoting bidirectional engagement and equity within community-academic partnerships at each phase of the research process. DESIGN: We conducted a four-step research process between November 2020 and December 2023 for framework development: (1) a narrative literature review; (2) expansion of existing bidirectional, equitable framework; (3) a scientific review with two groups of cognitive interviews (five community engagement researchers and five community leaders and members); and (4) three community-based organization leader focus groups. Thematic analysis was used to analyse focus group data. RESULTS: Using results of each step, the framework was iteratively developed, yielding four phases of the bidirectional engagement and equity (BEE) research framework: Relationship building and assessment of goals and resources (Phase I); form a community-academic partnership based on shared research interests (may include multilevel stakeholders) (Phase II); develop a research team comprising members from each partnering organization (Phase III); and implement the six-step equitable research process (Phase IV). Bidirectional learning and partnership principles are at the core of the partnership, particularly in Phases II-IV. Competencies and tools for conducting an equitable, engaged research process were provided. DISCUSSION: This conceptual framework offers a novel, stepwise approach and competencies for community-academic partners to successfully partner and conduct the research process equitably. CONCLUSION: The BEE research framework can be implemented to standardize the conduct of an equitable, engaged research process within a community-academic partnership, while improving knowledge and trust across partners and, ultimately, an increased return on investment and sustainability to benefit both partners in the area of health outcomes and ultimately health equity. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The development of this framework was co-led with a community organization in which two leaders in the organization were equitably involved in each phase of the research process, including grant development, study design, participant recruitment, protocol development for focus groups and community and researcher review, framework design and content and dissemination of this manuscript as a co-author. For grant development, the community leader completed the give-get grid components for them as a partner. They also wrote up their lived experience in the research process for the progress report. For the focus groups, one community leader co-led the focus group with the academic partner. For the narrative review, the community leaders did not actively conduct the narrative review but observed the process through the academic partners. One community leader wrote the section 'relationship building' and 'bidirectional learning' sections with the assistance of the academic partner, while they both equally provided input on other sections of the manuscript alongside academic partners. The community leaders have extensive experience in leading programmes, along with partnering with researchers to address health equity issues and improve health outcomes.

Using a community-engaged research process to plan, implement, and evaluate a cancer education program to improve knowledge and screening intentions among African American men.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of a culturally appropriate, cancer education program to improve cancer knowledge, attitudes, subjective norms, and screening intentions for oropharynx, colon, and prostate cancers among African American men. We detailed the community-engaged research process used for African American men to design, implement, and evaluate the program. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We recruited 84 (61 in-person, 23 online) African American men over 2-months across 4 churches in Middle Tennessee in 2021. A single group, pre-post-test design was used to evaluate the 2.5-h hybrid program. Scales used were: General self-efficacy for cancer screening; attitudes toward cancer; general cancer knowledge; and subjective norms related to cancer. One-item measured cancer screening intention. Taba robust partial correlation measured the degree of association between changes in means of each explanatory variable with changes in means of each outcome variable. IBM SPSS version 28 and R/RStudio version 3.6.0 was used for data analysis. We conducted three focus groups (n = 17) to assess program acceptability. Microsoft Excel version 26 was used to conduct thematic analysis for this data. FINDINGS: Quantitative Significant differences were found in the pre/post comparisons of knowledge (mean difference: 0.22; p-value = 0.015), self-efficacy (mean difference: 0.23; p-value < 0.001), and prostate cancer screening intention (mean difference: 0.19; p-value = 0.049) scores. This indicates the mean score for knowledge, self-efficacy, and prostate cancer screening intention was significantly higher post-intervention. Qualitative Focus group themes were: (1) Impact of Program on Participants Psychosocial Health (2) Perspectives on Life after the program. (3) Views on Programmatic Components; (4) Recommendations for Program Improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrate our program is feasible, acceptable, and could increase cancer screening intentions and behavior. Psychosocial providers should demonstrate cultural awareness and humility when providing services to address the psychological and social needs for cancer screening among African American men.

Development of strategies for community engaged research dissemination by basic scientists: a case study.

As depicted in the translational research continuum, dissemination of research findings to past research participants and the community-at-large is integral to improving health outcomes. Blocks in translation exist in which poor dissemination is a major contributor. Limited progress has been made on how to engage basic scientists at T1 and T2 phases to meaningfully disseminate study findings to community. Our objective is to report on 4 cases of community engaged research dissemination activities among 3 basic scientists (ie, a cancer biologist, a biochemist, and a molecular biologist.): a townhall, a radio listening session, a community newsletter, and a Facebook Live segment. The Meharry Community Engagement Core dissemination team designed these activities using community informed processes. To plan and conduct these activities, a basic scientist is partnered with a community engaged researcher and a community-based organization to create a dissemination product which can be understood and potentially used by past research participants and the community-at-large. We share reflections from basic scientists, community organizations, and event participants. Finally, we provide competencies, informed by basic scientists, needed to engage in effective, community-engaged research dissemination. The activities, reflections, and competencies can be used by basic scientists and academic institutions as models to guide their community engaged research dissemination activities. This work supports the goal to bridge the translational research gap.

Reducing HPV Associated Cancers and Disparities: Engaging African American Men to Develop a Culturally-Appropriate Program that Addresses their Needs.

BACKGROUND: The Healthy Men, Health Communities program aims to improve preventive behaviors among African American men to reduce HPV-related cancer disparities. PURPOSE: We describe the development of an educational intervention using cultural-targeting strategies (i.e., linguistics, peripherals, evidence, socio-culture, and constituent-involving). METHODS: After building capacity of community-based organization (CBO) leaders as research team members, we conducted 3 focus groups, 30 surveys, and a community review and program evaluation with African American men. RESULTS: Focus group themes were: 1) The Known and Unknown of Cancer, HPV, and the vaccine; (2) Personal experiences with cancer were commonplace; (3) Barriers to Engaging HPV Cancer Preventive Behaviors; (4) Multi-Modal Strategies are needed to improve preventive behaviors; and (5) Actual versus Preferred Sources of Information. Survey data indicated men desired information on penile (52%) and oral cancers (48%). The preferred education format was a summit with speakers on various topics (96%). Post-summit evaluation indicated majority of males intended to get screened (73%), eat healthier (77%), and exercise more (64%). About 40% reported getting themselves, children, or grandchildren the HPV vaccine. DISCUSSION: Our program demonstrated acceptability, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy. This work warrants further study as a potential program to improve HPV preventive behaviors among African American men.