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.

A call to leverage a health equity lens to accelerate human neuroscience research.

Investigation of health inequities tend to be examined, in human neurosciences, as biological factors at the level of the individual. In actuality, health inequities arise, due largely in part, to deep-seated structural factors. Structural inequality refers to the systemic disadvantage of one social group compared to others with whom they coexist. The term encompasses policy, law, governance, and culture and relates to race, ethnicity, gender or gender identity, class, sexual orientation, and other domains. These structural inequalities include but are not limited to social segregation, the intergenerational effects of colonialism and the consequent distribution of power and privilege. Principles to address inequities influenced by structural factors are increasingly prevalent in a subfield of the neurosciences, i.e., cultural neurosciences. Cultural neuroscience articulates the bidirectional relationship between biology and environmental contextual factors surrounding research participants. However, the operationalization of these principles may not have the intended spillover effect on the majority of human neurosciences: this limitation is the overarching focus of the present piece. Here, we provide our perspective that these principles are missing and very much needed in all human neuroscience subdisciplines to accelerate our understanding of the human brain. Furthermore, we provide an outline of two key tenets of a health equity lens necessary for achieving research equity in human neurosciences: the social determinants of health (SDoH) framework and how to deal with confounders using counterfactual thinking. We argue that these tenets should be prioritized across future human neuroscience research more generally, and doing so is a pathway to further gain an understanding of contextual background intertwined with the human brain, thus improving the rigor and inclusivity of human neuroscience research.