Community Engagement Practices at Research Centers in U.S. Minority Institutions: Priority Populations and Innovative Approaches to Advancing Health Disparities Research.

This paper details U.S. Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Community Engagement Cores (CECs): (1) unique and cross-cutting components, focus areas, specific aims, and target populations; and (2) approaches utilized to build or sustain trust towards community participation in research. A mixed-method data collection approach was employed for this cross-sectional study of current or previously funded RCMIs. A total of 18 of the 25 institutions spanning 13 U.S. states and territories participated. CEC specific aims were to support community engaged research (94%); to translate and disseminate research findings (88%); to develop partnerships (82%); and to build capacity around community research (71%). Four open-ended questions, qualitative analysis, and comparison of the categories led to the emergence of two supporting themes: (1) establishing trust between the community-academic collaborators and within the community and (2) building collaborative relationships. An overarching theme, building community together through trust and meaningful collaborations, emerged from the supporting themes and subthemes. The RCMI institutions and their CECs serve as models to circumvent the historical and current challenges to research in communities disproportionately affected by health disparities. Lessons learned from these cores may help other institutions who want to build community trust in and capacities for research that addresses community-related health concerns.

Developing an Infrastructure to Cultivate Equitable and Sustainable Community-Academic Research Partnerships: Meharry Community Engagement Core.

OBJECTIVES: Achieving health equity and reducing racial and ethnic health disparities require intentional community engagement efforts by academicians. Primary among these efforts is the acknowledgement of research-related mistrust. Efforts to build trust must begin with recognition of the invaluable knowledge and experience community stakeholders possess. METHODS: The Meharry Community Engagement Core builds on the foundation provided by Meharry Medical College, a Historically Black College and University, to achieve its mission to improve health and health outcomes through long-term collaborative research partnerships with community stakeholders. Early in its development, the Core actively engaged community stakeholders throughout all research phases. RESULTS: Early successes include achieving community feedback on research priorities, policies, and procedures and developing partnerships that span the research spectrum. Core work to date is promising and may serve as a model for addressing research-related mistrust and efforts to build trust.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Dual-Track Research Training Program for Community Members and Community-Based Organizations.

BACKGROUND: It is a public health priority to increase community research participation to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities. There is a need for effective research training programs that build community stakeholders' capacity to engage as equitable partners. OBJECTIVES: To describe the collaborative process of implementing and evaluating a dual-track community research training program-Meharry Vanderbilt Community Engaged Research Core-Community Research Training Program (MVC-CRT) Program-and present participant evaluations. METHODS: The MVC-CRT is a six-session community-based organization (CBO) curriculum and a three-session community member (CM) curriculum, based on needs identified by various community stakeholders, that was piloted in 2016. Immediately post-training, an outcome evaluation (surveys) was used to measure trainees' confidence relative to 30 learning objectives for the combined training sessions (e.g., Introduction to research), satisfaction in preparing them for research roles, and impact on research activities (e.g., building sustainable partnerships). 2 and 3 months after training, a process evaluation (focus groups) was used to assess each session's flow, materials, group discussions, and facilitators. RESULTS: Trainees' immediate post-training confidence increased or remained the same across 26 of 30 learning objectives. Two to 3 months after training, trainees reported sustained confidence, perceived increased knowledge, and increased intentions to engage in or improve research activities. All participants were satisfied with the program and felt better prepared for research roles. CONCLUSIONS: Tailored community research training may result in positive outcomes that can ultimately increase community capacity to be equitable partners in research in support of efforts to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities.

Racial and ethnic differences in knowledge and attitudes about genetic testing in the US: Systematic review.

Precision medicine has grown over the past 20 years with the availability of genetic tests and has changed the one-size-fits-all paradigm in medicine. Precision medicine innovations, such as newly available genetic tests, could potentially widen racial and ethnic disparities if access to them is unequal and if interest to use them differs across groups. The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize existing evidence on racial and ethnic differences in knowledge of and attitudes toward genetic testing among adult patients and the general public in the US, focusing on research about the use of genetic testing in general, not disease-specific tests. Twelve articles published in 1997-2017 met inclusion and exclusion criteria, with 10 including knowledge variables and seven including attitude variables. Studies found consistent patterns of lower awareness of genetic testing in general among non-Whites compared to Whites, lower factual knowledge scores among Blacks and Hispanics/Latinos, and mixed findings of differences in awareness of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing or the term precision medicine. Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and non-Whites generally had more concerns about genetic testing than Whites. The findings suggest that patients and the general public need access to culturally appropriate educational material about the use of genetic testing in precision medicine.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Diabetes Quality of Care: the Role of Healthcare Access and Socioeconomic Status.

INTRODUCTION: Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are disproportionately affected by diabetes. We assessed the state of racial/ethnic disparities in diabetes quality of care in the USA. METHODS: We analyzed cross-sectional data of adults diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in the nationally representative 2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Differences in adherence to five diabetes quality of care recommendations (HbA1c twice yearly, yearly foot exam, dilated eye exam, blood cholesterol test, and flu vaccination) were examined by race/ethnicity while controlling for three social determinants of health (health insurance status, poverty, and education) and other demographic variables. RESULTS: Among adults with diabetes in the USA, 74.9% received two or more HbA1c tests, 69.0% had a foot exam, 64.9% had an eye exam, 85.4% had a cholesterol test, and 65.1% received flu vaccination in 2013. Compared to Whites, all were lower for Hispanics; HbA1c tests, eye exam, and flu vaccination were lower for Blacks; HbA1c tests, foot exam, and eye exam were lower for Asians. In adjusted models, the only remaining disparities in quality of care indicators were HbA1c tests for Hispanics (AOR 0.67, CI = 0.47-0.97), Blacks (AOR 0.59, CI = 0.40-0.88), and Asians (AOR 0.47, CI = 0.42-0.99); foot exams for Hispanics (AOR 0.65, CI = 0.47-0.90); and flu vaccination for Blacks (AOR 0.68, CI = 0.49-0.93). CONCLUSION: Lack of insurance coverage and education explained some of the racial/ethnic disparities observed in diabetes quality of care. Improving quality of diabetes care could help reduce rates of diabetes complications, healthcare costs, and mortality.

Exploring ethnic disparities in diabetes, diabetes care, and lifestyle behaviors: the Nashville REACH 2010 community baseline survey.

In order to gain a better understanding of diabetes-related health disparities, Nashville REACH 2010 conducted a community baseline survey on health status. A total of 3204 randomly selected African-American (AA) and Caucasian (C) residents of North Nashville, and a comparison sample of residents living in Nashville/Davidson County were interviewed using a computer-assisted telephone interviewing system. Diabetes prevalence was determined, and similarities/differences relative to access to health care, co-morbid conditions, diabetes care, and lifestyle behaviors, were examined. Age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes was 1.7 times higher among AAs. Increasing age (P<.0001) and being AA (P<.01) were predictive of diabetes status in a regression model. African Americans were more likely to be uninsured (P<.01), while Cs had to travel farther to get medical care (P<.0002). Compared to Caucasians, African Americans were 1.6 times more likely to have co-morbid hypertension (P<.004). Reported insulin use was higher (P<.0001) in AAs, and more Cs (25.5% vs 9.1%, respectively) reported taking no medications. African Americans were more likely to report (P<.0001) daily glucose self-monitoring, while more Cs (P<.04) reported having had an eye exam in the last 1 to 2 years. Caucasians reported more (P<.05) active lifestyle behaviors, while AA reported more (P<.001) fat-increasing behaviors. In conclusion, interventions addressing diabetes disparities in the target population should focus on insuring equitable awareness of, and access to, insurance options; managing co-morbidities; improving provider adherence to standards of care; and establishing multi-level supports for lifestyle modifications.

Using focus groups to understand health-related practices and perceptions of African Americans: Nashville REACH 2010 preliminary findings.

To gain an understanding of health-related practices and perceptions, Nashville REACH 2010 conducted focus studies among 5 community groups. Attitudes about health, personal risk behaviors, quality of health care, and models of personal behavior change were assessed. All focus-group sessions were transcribed and analyzed using a consensus panel methodology. A combined analysis of the focus groups revealed 3 categories of barriers to healthier living: 1) personal, 2) environmental, and 3) systemic. Personal barriers included lack of adequate finances, physical limitations, lack of knowledge, and stress. Environmental barriers were related to the unavailability of healthy food choices and adequate places to exercise in the community. The accessibility and quality of health care were the most pervasive systemic barriers identified. Though these findings are not novel to urban African-American communities, they will serve as the framework by which Nashville REACH 2010 will implement strategies to reduce and, ultimately, eliminate cardiovascular disease and diabetes disparities.