Use of Community-Engaged Research Approaches in Clinical Interventions for Neurologic Disorders in the United States: A Scoping Review and Future Directions for Improving Health Equity Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests a significant prevalence of race and ethnic disparities in the United States among people with neurologic conditions including stroke, Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD), Parkinson disease (PD), epilepsy, spinal cord injury (SCI), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Recent neurologic research has begun the paradigm shift from observational health disparities research to intervention research in an effort to narrow the disparities gap. There is an evidence base that suggests that community engagement is a necessary component of health equity. While the increase in disparities focused neurologic interventions is encouraging, it remains unclear whether and how community-engaged practices are integrated into intervention design and implementation. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize intervention studies that have actively engaged with the community in the design and implementation of interventions to reduce disparities in neurologic conditions and to describe the common community engagement processes used. METHODS: Two databases, PubMed and CINAHL, were searched to identify eligible empirical studies within the United States whose focus was on neurologic interventions addressing disparities and using community engagement practices. RESULTS: We identified 392 disparity-focused interventions in stroke, ADRD, PD, epilepsy, SCI, and TBI, of which 53 studies incorporated community engagement practices: 32 stroke studies, 15 ADRD, 2 epilepsy studies, 2 PD studies, 1 SCI study, and 1 TBI study. Most of the interventions were designed as randomized controlled trials and were programmatic in nature. The interventions used a variety of community engagement practices: community partners (42%), culturally tailored materials and mobile health (40%), community health workers (32%), faith-based organizations and local businesses (28%), focus groups/health need assessments (25%), community advisory boards (19%), personnel recruited from the community/champions (19%), and caregiver/social support (15%). DISCUSSION: Our scoping review reports that the proportion of neurologic intervention studies incorporating community engagement practices is limited and that the practices used within those studies are varied. The major practices used included collaboration with community partners and utilization of culturally tailored materials. We also found inconsistent reporting and dissemination of results from studies that implemented community engagement measures in their interventions. Future directions include involving the community in research early and continuously, building curricula that address challenges to community engagement, prioritizing the inclusion of community engagement reporting in peer-reviewed journals, and prioritizing and incentivizing research of subpopulations that experience disparities in neurologic conditions.