Promoting community engagement in spinal cord injury research: a case example.

Community engagement is an important method of knowledge translation in spinal cord injury (SCI) research where researchers collaborate with people with lived experience, care partners, and other research users to improve the quality of research. This perspective article aims to promote community engagement in SCI research by describing useful resources for its implementation and providing an example project using the North American Spinal Cord Injury Consortium (NASCIC) process for such partnerships. Researchers from the Jefferson College of Rehabilitation Sciences' (JCRS) Center for Outcomes and Measurement engaged NASCIC to create an advisory committee composed of four people living with SCI to make recommendations for the methods of a large-scale study to develop a clinical outcome assessment. The advisory committee made usable recommendations for enhancing recruitment methods and reducing burden and barriers to participation. The successful partnership between NASCIC and JCRS shows the feasibility and value of SCI community engagement in research.

Spinal Cord Injury Community Personal Opinions and Perspectives on Spinal Cord Stimulation.

Background: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) clinical trials are evaluating its efficacy and safety for motor, sensory, and autonomic recovery following spinal cord injury (SCI). The perspectives of people living with SCI are not well known and can inform the planning, delivery, and translation of SCS. Objectives: To obtain input from people living with SCI on the top priorities for recovery, expected meaningful benefits, risk tolerance, clinical trial design, and overall interest in SCS. Methods: Data were collected anonymously from an online survey between February and May 2020. Results: A total of 223 respondents living with SCI completed the survey. The majority of respondents identified their gender as male (64%), were 10+ years post SCI (63%), and had a mean age of 50.8 years. Most individuals had a traumatic SCI (81%), and 45% classified themselves as having tetraplegia. Priorities for improved outcome for those with complete or incomplete tetraplegia included fine motor skills and upper body function, whereas priorities for complete or incomplete paraplegia included standing and walking, and bowel function. The meaningful benefits that are important to achieve are bowel and bladder care, less reliance on caregivers, and maintaining physical health. Perceived potential risks include further loss of function, neuropathic pain, and complications. Barriers to participation in clinical trials include inability to relocate, out-of-pocket expenses, and awareness of therapy. Respondents were more interested in transcutaneous SCS than epidural SCS (80% and 61%, respectively). Conclusion: SCS clinical trial design, participant recruitment, and translation of the technology can be improved by better reflecting the priorities and preferences of those living with SCI identified from this study.