A taxonomy of impacts on clinical and translational research from community stakeholder engagement.

BACKGROUND: Community engagement is increasingly recognized as a valuable tool in clinical and translational research; however, the impact of engagement is not fully understood. No standard nomenclature yet exists to clearly define how research changes when community stakeholders are engaged across the research spectrum. This severely limits our ability to assess the value of community engagement in research. To address this gap, we developed a taxonomy for characterizing and classifying changes in research due to community engagement. METHODS: Using an iterative process, we (a) identified areas of potential impact associated with community engagement from author experience, (b) categorized these in taxonomic bins based on research stages, (c) conducted semi-structured interviews with researchers and community stakeholders, (d) validated the codebook in a sample dataset and (e) refined the taxonomy based on the validation. Community stakeholders were involved in every step of the process including as members of the primary study team. RESULTS: The final taxonomy catalogues changes into eleven domains corresponding to research phases. Each domain includes 2-4 dimensions depicting concepts within the domain's scope and, within each dimension, 2-10 elements labelling activities through which community engagement could change research. CONCLUSIONS: Community engagement has great potential to enhance clinical and translational research. This taxonomy provides a common vocabulary and framework for understanding the impact of community engagement and suggests metrics for assessing the value of community engagement in research.

Needs, Priorities, and Recommendations for Engaging Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Research: A Community Perspective.

Engaging underrepresented groups in outcomes research is a public health priority for reducing health and health care disparities; yet, engaging these groups is challenging. Failure to involve these underrepresented populations in research further exacerbates these disparities. This article presents the health and research priorities of diverse groups of underrepresented populations in biomedical research, their concerns for participating in research, and strategies to engage them in their healthcare and research studies. Eleven community listening sessions, ranging from 7 to 13 community members each (N = 117), representing racial/ethnic minority, economically disadvantaged (e.g., uninsured), and hearing impaired communities. We used an inductive, qualitative content analysis approach to analyze the data for emerging themes. We identified the following themes: Uncertainties of underrepresented populations regarding research participation; Ineffective communication about research opportunities and research findings; Research on primary care and prevention are priorities for underrepresented populations in research; and Research teams need training in cultural competence and humility. Underrepresented groups provided research priorities, concerns, and strategies to engage them in their healthcare and in research studies. Findings from this study could facilitate improvement of research participation among underrepresented groups, ultimately reducing health disparities and improving quality of life among groups commonly omitted from research recruitment and participation.

Development and validation of the Person-Centeredness of Research Scale.

AIM: Person-centeredness shifts the focus of healthcare and research to the needs and priorities of patients and communities, and may improve health outcomes. There are no instruments available, however, with which we can assess the degree to which research is indeed person-centered. Our aim was to develop and validate a quantitative instrument to rate person-centeredness of research. MATERIALS & METHODS: Scale development and validation entailed a multistep approach that led to the seven-item Person Centeredness of Research Scale (PCoR Scale) that uses a 5-point Likert rating scale. The scale was validated using ratings of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research abstracts or abstracts submitted to a translational science meeting. RESULTS: Psychometric properties of the PCoR Scale showed high internal consistency (α = 0.96). All seven items were highly correlated with the total score (rs range from 0.63 to 0.90). An exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that all of the items loaded on a single factor, explaining 80% of the variance. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded research abstracts had a mean PCoR Scale score of 6.52 (±8.01) that was significantly higher than the abstracts submitted to the translational science meeting (-2.56 (±9.18); t = 8.09; p < 0.0001). Inter-rater reliability in the validation of the revised instrument was high (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC](group1) = 0.89; ICC(group2) = 0.95). CONCLUSION: This brief, quantitative rating scale is the first to assess the main constructs that describe person-centeredness of research products. The PCoR Scale can be used to assess person-centeredness in research products; for example, by funders evaluating proposals, data networks evaluating data requests or researchers evaluating their research designs.